
Class 

Book 

Copyright^ . 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



THE WHEAT AND TARES 



By 

DAVID MacCLEMENT ROWE 
1914 



Press of 

United Brethren Publishing Company 

Dayton, Ohio 



J3T?g 
,K7 



Copyrighted, 19U, by 

David HacClement Roive 

Dayton, Ohio 



JAN -2 1915 



CI.A393060 



Betucatefci 

Co tfje cause of mp 

ILoxh anb g>ainor, 

SFesu* Cfjrist 



CONTENTS 



PAGE 

A Word of Appreciation 7 

A Few Testimonials 9 

Preface 13 

Note 15 

Comments on Unitarian Preachments . . . . 17 

Abraham Lincoln's Religion 21 

Unitarian and Scientific Theology 25 

The Old, Old Story 38 

What Is Christianity? 41 

Is the Bible Genuine? 46 

The Bible — Comments 52 

What Is the Nature of God? 54 

Is There a Personal Devil? 59 

What Is Man's Relation to God ? 65 

What Is Spiritual Death ? 72 

Whence Comes Spiritual Life? 78 

Is Christ Concealed in the Old Testament? ... 83 

Is the Virgin Birth a Myth ? 88 

Did Christ Teach Social Service? 94 

What Did Christ Teach Concerning Himself? . . 100 

Is There a Holy Spirit? 105 

Will There Be a Final Judgment? 110 

Is Hell a Myth? 116 

Is Christ's Resurrection a Myth? 124 

Jesus' Teaching Concerning the Sabbath .... 134 

Christ's Teaching Concerning Baptism .... 140 

The Lord's Supper 146 

Benediction 150 



A WORD OF APPRECIATION 

NEWSPAPER publishers are often criticized because 
they print so much sensational matter, give minute 
details to stories of crime and immorality, and give so 
little space to religious matter. It is also observed that many 
editorials are of a more or less irreligious or irreverent char- 
acter. 

Publishers usually contend that they give the public what 
the public demands of the newspapers. In others words, news- 
papers are published to sell. They contain what the publisher 
considers will help increase the circulation. Advertising rates 
depend on the circulation, and advertising space is what pays. 

Another argument is : There is so much good being done all 
the time by so many people, that it is difficult to make news- 
paper stories of such matter sufficiently exciting to cause them 
to be read. Good is the rule rather than the exception, and for 
that reason crime stands out so prominently and attracts so 
much attention. 

Again, newspapers are for all the people, regardless of their 
religious beliefs or unbeliefs, and publishers try to avoid antag- 
onizing any considerable portion of the general public by advo- 
cating any certain religious views. 

It is true, however, that newspapers exert a powerful influ- 
ence on the public mind. To a very considerable extent they 
mould public opinion. They are active rather than passive 
factors relative to public opinion. It is an open question, there- 
fore, whether this possible influence for good should be lost 
by simply catering to a morbid taste for excitement, or be 
exerted in assisting to educate the general public to a loftier 
plane of thought and thereby causing the newspapers to become 
a medium for reducing the amount of crime committed. For, 
"As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." 



8 Twentieth Century Christianity 

When we find an exception to the general attitude of news- 
papers toward religious matter, it is fitting that it should be 
recognized. We take pleasure, therefore, in commending Mr. 
E. G. Burkam, president of the Dayton Journal Company, for 
his kindness in giving so much space in his paper to the publi- 
cation of the fifteen articles on "Twentieth Century Christi- 
anity" which appeared in the Dayton Journal during the period 
from February seventeenth to July fourteenth, 1914. In pub- 
lishing these articles, Mr. Burkam did a real good. They were 
widely read and commented on by Journal readers in all walks 
of life, which goes to prove that such matter is good "news- 
paper stuff." Mr. Burkam, we thank you. 

Very truly, 

D. M. Rowe. 



A FEW TESTIMONIALS 

The following letters are published here for the purpose 
of inspiring confidence in the matter contained in this book 
and not in the least for the commendation of the author. 



From Dr. J. C. Massee, pastor of the First Baptist Church, 
Dayton, G'hio: 

July 17, 1914. 
Mr. D. M. Rowe : 

I have read a number of your recent articles on "Twentieth 
Century Christianity." It is my regret that any of them escaped 
me. I commend both the content, and the method of your de- 
fence of the "Old Book" and the "Old Faith." You have main- 
tained a high standard throughout, and some of the articles, 
notably those on the Deity of Christ, the Judgment, the Holy 
Spirit, and the Resurrection, are among the strongest and fresh- 
est I have yet read. I wish, for the sake of many who would 
profit by these articles, that you would put them all together 
in book form. 

Faithfully yours, 

J. C. Massee. 



From Dr. Maurice E. Wilson, pastor of the First Presby- 
terian Church, Dayton, Ohio: 

July 20, 1914. 
Mr. D. M. Rowe: 

I beg to express to you my appreciation of the series of 
articles on "Twentieth Century Christianity," which you have 
published from time to time in the Journal. These articles, I 
know, have been of much value and help to many readers, 
bringing to their attention in a clear, succinct, and forcible way, 
some of the fundamental truths of our faith — the faith held 



10 Twentieth Century Christianity 

by all the Evangelical churches in common as well as by the 
great Catholic churches, both Greek and Roman. Coming from 
a layman, these papers have attracted more attention than if 
they had emanated from a theologian or a minister. Your man- 
ner of presentation has been admirable all the way through. 
Very sincerely yours, 

Maurice E. Wilson. 



From Dr. Henry F. Colby, formerly pastor of the First 
Baptist Church, Dayton, Ohio, nozv retired: 

August 14, 1914. 
Mr. D. M. Rowe : 

I have read carefully all of your fifteen articles published 
in the Dayton Journal. Doubtless you could have filled a very 
much larger space with a subject so extensive in its nature, but 
I wish to say that, in my judgment, you have treated many of 
the great arguments in that line with thoughtfulness, fairness, 
and ability. 

The articles ought to do good to any one who will carefully 
read them, and the Christian people of the city are under obli- 
gations to you for your courage, your study, and your skill in 
the treatment of this theme. 

I am glad that you propose to publish them in a book, and 
I hope that it will have many readers. Thanking you, I remain, 
as always, 

Yours fraternally, 

Henry F. Colby. 



From Dr. William A. Hale, pastor of the First Reformed 
Church, Dayton, Ohio: 

August 25, 1914. 
Mr. D. M. Rowe : 

I have read your articles on "Twentieth Century Christi- 
anity," appearing in the Dayton Journal, with great interest, 
and am sincere in saying they are strong, earnest, and convinc- 



The Wheat and Tares 11 

ing. I suggest that they be published in a more permanent 
form. Their merit deserves it. I hope you will see your way 
clear to give laymen the help these papers must need afford to 
honest thinkers. I congratulate you on your success. 
Yours in Christ, 

William A. Hale. 



From Dr. Charles A. Campbell, pastor of the Third Street 
Presbyterian Church, Dayton, Ohio: 

November 11, 1914. 
Mr. D. M. Rowe : 

I have been deeply interested in learning of the intention to 
gather into book form your newspaper articles on various 
themes of theology. During the course of their publication 
it was gratifying to hear from many sides words of approval 
and expressions of a sense of service rendered. 

The Master said, "Every scribe who hath been made a 
disciple to the kingdom of heaven, is like unto a man that is an 
householder which bringeth forth out of his treasure things 
new and old." We need all angles of vision, all accents and 
inflections, and it is good for each man scribe of the kingdom 
to reveal the glory of his own peculiar treasure of faith. 

The value of doctrine is undisputable, notably so if it aug- 
ments the intellectual consciousness of spiritual realities. 

The Word of God retains, I believe, the place of supreme 
spiritual authority. Its radiant truths are as potent as ever to 
illuminate and guide seeking souls to God. The revelation of 
Jesus stands unique, and unspeakably superior to all other 
words in purity, power, and promise, and he who chooses may 
demonstrate its credibility and divinity in his own heart by faith 
and obedience. 

You have called attention to the outstanding assertions of 
the Book in a positive, simple, and intelligible fashion, and you 
have, I think, reflected the mind of the Spirit in your essays. 



12 Twentieth Century Christianity 

It would be a distinct gain if every Christian would make 
friends with these first-magnitude stars in the firmament of 
truth, which you have brought within the range of the vision 
of the average thinker on serious things. 
Sincerely yours, 

Charles A. Campbell. 



PREFACE 

FOR several years the writer has been impressed by the 
mass of unscriptural religious or semi-religious articles, 
news-stories, arguments, and so-called sermons which 
have appeared in newspapers and magazines. This class of 
religious matter has been given great prominence, probably be- 
cause of its startling nature. On the other hand, there appears 
to have been comparatively little published, through these me- 
diums, in refutation of these alleged modern religious ideas. 

True enough, there have been many books published which 
deal with these erroneous teachings, but the general public does 
not read these books. The general public does read newspapers 
and magazines. The danger is apparent that the mind of the 
general public, feeding on these skeptical doctrines, might be- 
come alienated from the "old-time Religion." 

Among the tainted religious doctrines promulgated to the 
general public, may be mentioned Russellism, Eddyism, 
Universalism, Unitarianism, Liberalism, Materialism, certain 
Higher Criticism, Socialism, and many other forms of error 
and modern Agnosticism, Skepticism, Infidelity, and Atheism. 

It is evident that more must be done through popular print 
to reach the general public and set its mind right on the funda- 
mentals of true Christianity. The writer was so imbued with 
this idea that he longed to do something in this direction, but 
felt unequal to the task. But, however much he lacked confi- 
dence in himself, or faith in God to use him for the purpose, 
he could not rid himself of the impulse to endeavor to do some- 
thing. A certain Unitarian preacher had been in the habit of 
rushing into print with his destructive preachments. It has 
been his delight to ridicule the Christian church, Christian min- 
isters, Christian people, and Christian ideals. In fine, his whole 
ambition has been to try to undermine the entire foundation of 
Christianity and to substitute therefor a man-made religion, 
built on ancient philosophies, scientific discoveries, and the 
teachings of such heathen deities as Confucius, Gautama 



14 Twentieth Century Christianity 

Buddha, Mohammed, and others, all of whom he places on an 
equality with Jesus Christ. 

In his sarcastic treatment of the Christian religion, his 
teachings have been destructive throughout. He has offered 
absolutely nothing of a constructive character. 

As the Christian ministry gave little or no attention, pub- 
licly, to his attacks, he became bolder and bolder, until in right- 
eous indignation, the writer ventured a reply which was pub- 
lished in the Dayton Journal, January 27, 1914, and which is 
reprinted in this book. 

No sooner had this edition of the Journal reached the break- 
fast tables in Dayton, than the writer received telephone calls 
thanking him for the article. He was stopped on the streets 
and men called at his office to commend him for the article. 
It seemed to strike the popular chord. Laymen and women, as 
well as ministers of all denominations, seemed to be highly 
pleased. Then it was suggested that this article should be fol- 
lowed up by a series of articles setting forth the fundamentals 
of Christianity. The writer decided to accept the task, realizing 
that God can do a lot with one man if the man be willing. The 
fifteen articles are the result. 

As the articles appeared from time to time, it was suggested 
that they should be published in a permanent form, and this 
book is the result. 

It was never the idea that these articles thoroughly cover 
any of the various themes. Hundreds of books have been writ- 
ten on almost all of them. It was the purpose merely to give 
in popular form some argumentative hints that might set the 
reader's mind to traveling along the right road, with the hope 
that the brief arguments might lead to a closer study of the 
Scriptures and other books that would be of assistance in open- 
ing up a better understanding of God's Word. A thorough 
understanding of the Bible is a bulwark against fads of peculiar 
religious ideas that "are like the grass which to-day is and to- 
morrow is cast into the oven." 



NOTE 

IN the preparation of the articles on "Twentieth Century 
Christianity" and other matter contained in this book, the 
author is indebted to a great many writers and commen- 
tators for information, suggested thoughts, illustrations, and 
quotations. These helps from so many sources are so inter- 
woven that it is next to impossible now to identify them, except 
in a few prominent instances already credited in the text. 

We give below some of the sources of our help : 

The Bible — Comparative scriptural references. 

Dr. Henry Drummond — "Natural Law in the Spiritual 
World." 

Flavius Josephus — Jewish history and dissertations. 

Herbert Spencer — "First Principles — Biology." 

Dr. Charles Darwin — "The Origin of Species." 

Simon Greenleaf, LL.D. — "Testimony of the Evangelists." 

Edward I. Bosworth — "Inductive Studies — Teachings of 
Jesus and His Disciples." 

Dr. Daniel Shepardson — Sermons. 

John Milton — "Paradise Lost." 

Dante Alighieri — "The Divine Comedy." 

Johann W. von Goethe — "Faust." 

Lord Francis Bacon — Essays, "Death," "Atheism," etc. 

Victor Hugo — "Les Miserables." 

Miscellaneous others : Shakespeare, Dickens, MacLaren, 
Geikie, Peloubet, Farrar, etc. 



Note — The following article, previously referred to, led to 
the writing of the fifteen articles on "Twentieth Century Chris- 
tianity." From the Dayton Journal, Tuesday, January 27, 1914. 

COMMENTS ON UNITARIAN PREACHMENTS 

FOR some time, a certain minister has been flaunting glaring 
advertisements of Unitarianism. He has been diligent 
in getting his preachments into the public press. The 
writer is now impressed that a few comments may be apropos. 
While the orthodox Christian church holds up the Cross 
and appeals to men to worship God through his Son, Jesus 
Christ, this minister holds up the bones of departed American 
citizens and cries out, "Behold these relics of the Unitarian 
Church!" But even in that, he compromises the truth. Re- 
cently he published the portraits of seven men claimed to be 
Unitarians. Of these we concede him Eliot, Emerson, and 
Jefferson. What of the others? Lowell was more probably 
either a Congregationalist or a member of the Church of Eng- 
land, as were other members of the Lowell family. It is not 
known that ^Lincoln ever attached himself to any particular 
church, but from his various utterances and his attitude toward 
prayer, it is evident that he believed in Christ as a mediator and 
a Savior. Hale was a member of the Congregational Church of 
Boston. Was Longfellow a Unitarian? Would a Unitarian 
poet translate and publish the following ? 
From the Spanish : 

"Hear, Shepherd ; thou who for thy flock art dying, 
O wash away these scarlet sins, for thou 
Rejoicest at the contrite sinner's vow. 
O wait ; to thee my weary soul is crying — 
Wait for me : Yet why ask it, when I see, 
With feet nailed to the cross, thou 'rt waiting still for me." 



*See sketch, "Lincoln's Religion." 



18 Twentieth Century Christianity 

Or the following, from "God's Acre" : 

"Into its furrows shall we all be cast, 

In the sure faith that we shall rise again 
At the great harvest ; when the Archangel's blast 
Shall winnow like a fan, the chaff and grain." 

A WEAK ARGUMENT 

But is it not a weak argument to ask a man to believe a 
doctrine simply because another man believed it, even though 
the inference be that the other man was more intellectual or 
greater than the one sought? That is to suppress the will, to 
stifle the intellect and enthrall the soul. How many newspaper 
pages could be filled with the portraits of great men who have 
lived and died in the true Christian faith, and of those who to- 
day are as firmly as ever anchored to it? But the Christian 
church points to but One, Jesus Christ, the Author and Finisher 
of our faith, the only perfect Man. 

VARIETY OF BELIEFS 

But the Unitarian Church is a sect of many shades of belief. 
It is largely a matter of individual opinion among its members 
as to what should or should not be accepted from the Bible. One 
member of the Dayton church told me she believes in the trans- 
migration of souls. Probably she is the only one who accepts 
that old heathen doctrine. After preaching four years at the 
Middlesex Association (Unitarian), Emerson resigned because 
his congregation differed with him in respect to the Lord's 
Supper. 

Emerson did not believe in consistency. He said, "Speak 
what you think to-day, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow 
thinks though it contradict everything you said to-day." 

From the published philosophical dissertations of this 
preacher, the foregoing seems to be his policy. The Unitarian 
Church of Dayton will likely think much as its leader thinks. 



The Wheat and Tares 19 

One thing he professes to think is, that no intelligent man to- 
day believes otherwise than as he believes. Statistics show that 
in the United States there are twenty millions of orthodox be- 
lievers in the principal Protestant denominations. There are 
seventy thousand Unitarians. Think of it ! Seventy thousand 
intelligent beings in the United States against twenty millions 
of ignorant, superstitious believers in worn-out legends ! A 
terrible condition of affairs ! 

MORE EFFUSIONS 

This Unitarian slaps his chest and says : "I am not a cow- 
ard. I am a red-blooded man and I do not need a Savior. I 
will be my own savior." Say, what becomes of all that red 
blood when the funeral dirge is sounded? 

Then he asks, "From what am I to be saved?" He scoffs 
at being termed a lost soul. Then he talks about every man 
being his neighbor's savior. But what is the need of so many 
saviors if no one is to be saved from anything? On the other 
hand, it is as one drowning man depending on another drowning 
man to save him. In fact, taking his effusions through and 
through, they appear full of vagarious rot. He speaks of the 
Bible as being one of the great books of the world ; then in the 
next breath he says it is full of lies and absurdities. He speaks 
of the Christ spirit, and of emulating Christ as a standard of 
morality, and in the next breath he makes Christ appear as the 
greatest liar, blasphemer, and imposter that ever lived. He 
gives the same weight to the sayings of ancient heathen men 
and women as to the teachings of Christ. He digs up old, 
worn-out philosophies and presents them as modern thought. 
He worships at the throne of Materialism, that mirage of the 
Great Reality. He denies the miraculous because, forsooth, 
it does not line up with the convolutions of his own wonderful 
brain. He has discovered by astronomical observations that 
heaven is not and cannot be up. Wonderful, wonderful ! He 
says our children have the right to know and be taught the best ; 



20 Twentieth Century Christianity 

he is the best ; therefore, send our children to him and extract 
them from the twenty millions of ignoramuses. The great 
inducement — he talks in the Sunday school. The Primary De- 
partment will be taught — How God made Dinosaurs. The 
Cradle-Roll Department will be told how long it takes God to 
do things. By all means, children should know these things 
while they are young and innocent. We have in our midst one 
who knows God's limitations and his value of time. 

After all, what is there in these theories that will satisfy 
a dying man? What does he offer to convert a Jean Valjean 
into a Madeleine? Tell such a character to grasp his boot- 
straps and jerk himself out of a slough of crime, and see what 
wonderful results you get ! Go into the sub-stratum of society 
— go where, as Victor Hugo says, "the earth leaves off and the 
mire begins," there preach philosophy and materialism to the 
down-and-outs and see their faces beam with the joy of a new 
light bursting in upon their souls. 

A has. "Fowls cackle, asses bray, and philosophers spin 
false reasons." "That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That 
which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Know ye not that these 
things are spiritually discerned?" 



ABRAHAM LINCOLN'S RELIGION 

OWING to the oft-reiterated assertions of certain Uni- 
tarians that Abraham Lincoln was a Unitarian, it is 
proper here to say a further word on that subject. 
However, the fact that any man or number of men, regardless 
of their prominence or intelligence, supported a certain reli- 
gious doctrine, is not of itself an evidence of the authenticity of 
that doctrine. 

First, there is no record to show that Lincoln ever entered 
a Unitarian church or attended a Unitarian service. On the 
other hand, it is a well-known fact that during his residence in 
Springfield, Illinois, Lincoln was a regular attendant at the 
First Presbyterian Church. Also during his residence in Wash- 
ington, Lincoln regularly attended services at the New York 
Avenue Presbyterian Church, where his pew is still preserved 
and bears a silver plate designating it as Lincoln's pew. None 
but very prominent people are ever allowed to occupy it. 

While Lincoln was naturally of a religious disposition, yet 
in his early life his religion was more of an intellectual interest 
than of a spiritual character. It is also admitted that at the 
age of twenty-five, owing, perhaps, to "interpretations of 
Biblical precepts of the more or less illiterate church of the 
W r est," Lincoln revolted against the Christian system, and 
even prepared a pamphlet against it, which was afterwards 
destroyed, yet this period of doubt lasted for but a short time. 
He never joined any religious sect, but always had a deep 
reverence for the Bible and the church, and was a regular 
attendant upon religious services. His literary style and moral 
point of view were both formed by the Bible. 

When death came into his family, what do we find? That 
is always a test. When his son Willie was sick, Mr. Lincoln 
was constantly at his bedside, watching and praying. When 



22 Twentieth Century Christianity 

the boy died, Lincoln, already weighed down with the affairs 
of the Government, was then crushed with grief. For the first 
time in his life, Lincoln was driven to look outside of his own 
mind and heart for help to endure his sorrow. It was then that 
he turned to the Christian religion for consolation. Whatever 
Lincoln's previous attitude may have been toward the Chris- 
tion faith, it certainly was his source of comfort after his son's 
death; for from that time on he was often found studying 
his Bible and bowing in prayer. But even prior to that time 
there is sufficient evidence that Lincoln revered the Christian 
faith. We find that evidence all through his public utterances 
and state papers. In his first inaugural address, President Lin- 
coln said the difficulty between the North and South could be 
adjusted in the best way by "intelligence, patriotism, CHRIS- 
TIANITY, and a firm reliance on Him who has never forsaken 
this favored land." 

That Lincoln believed in the justice and judgments of God 
is evident from many of his utterances in connection with the 
war. We give one example; there are others. In his procla- 
mation for a National Fast Day, August, 1861, he said: 

"Whereas, it is fit and becoming in all people, at all times, 
to acknowledge and revere the Supreme Government of God ; to 
bow in humble submission to His chastisements; to confess 
and deplore their sins and transgressions, in the full conviction 
that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; and to 
pray with all fervency and contrition for the pardon of their 
past offences, and for a blessing upon their present and pros- 
pective action; and, 

"Whereas, when our own beloved country, once, by the 
blessing of God, was united, and prosperous and happy, is now 
afflicted with faction and civil war, it is peculiarly fit for us 
to recognize the hand of God in this terrible visitation, and in 
sorrowful remembrance of our own faults and crimes as a na- 
tion, and as individuals, to humble ourselves before Him, and 
pray for His mercy, to pray that we may be spared further 
punishment, though justly deserved;" etc. 



The Wheat and Tares 23 

This does not sound much like the Unitarian doctrine of 
self-dependence and evolution, by personal effort, from moral 
depravity to the highest moral rectitude ; nor like their teaching 
that God has no hand in the great affliction of nations when 
they ignore His will as taught in the Old Testament. 

Lincoln's attitude toward the Holy Spirit is clearly estab- 
lished by his Proclamation for a Day of Thanksgiving to God 
for hearing "the supplications and prayers of an afflicted peo- 
ple and to vouchsafe to the Army and Navy of the United 
States victories on land and sea," etc. This proclamation, 
issued July 15, 1863, set aside for the above purpose Thurs- 
day, August 6, 1863. The second paragraph reads, "Now, 
therefore, be it known that I do set apart Thursday, the 6th 
day of August next, to be observed as a day for national 
thanksgiving, praise, and prayer, and I invite the people of 
the United States to assemble on that occasion in their custo- 
mary places of worship and in the forms approved by their 
own consciences, render homage due to the Divine Majesty for 
the wonderful things He has done in the Nation's behalf, and 
invoke the influence of His Holy Spirit to subdue the anger 
which has produced so long-sustained a needless and cruel re- 
bellion, to change the hearts of the insurgents, to guide the 
counsels of the Government with wisdom adequate to so great 
a national emergency, and to visit with tender care and con- 
solation throughout the length and breadth of our land, all 
those who, through vicissitudes of marches, voyages, battles, 
and sieges, have been brought to suffer in mind, body, or 
estate, and finally to lead the whole nation through the paths of 
repentance and submission to the Divine Will, back to the 
perfect enjoyment of Union and fraternal peace." 

In this we find a clear statement of the power and office of 
the Holy Spirit, as defined by Christ, namely, to influence, to 
subdue, to change hearts, to guide, to visit and console, to 
lead to repentance and submission to the Divine Will. This is 
anything but Unitarianism, which denies the existence of a 
Holy Spirit. 



24 Twentieth Century Christianity 

As to Lincoln's personal convictions, he once said publicly, 
"I am deeply concerned to know, not whether the Lord is on 
my side, but whether I am on the Lord's side." This shows 
his deep desire to submit his will to the Lord's will, rather than 
to endeavor to bring the Lord over to any peculiar religious 
ideas of his own invention. 



References: Tarbell's "Life of Lincoln," and "Messages and 
Papers of the Presidents," compiled by Hon. James D. Richardson. 



UNITARIANISM AND SCIENTIFIC THEOLOGY 

IN order that the readers of the articles in this book, who 
have never investigated Unitarianism and Scientific The- 
ology, may thoroughly understand the references we make 
to this class of religious thought, the product of some of our 
universities, we present here a brief sketch of the history of 
Unitarianism and its doctrines to which are allied certain Ma- 
terialistic doctrines born of Modern Knowledge. 

UNITARIANISM 

Any one who has read the New Testament knows that the 
deity of Christ is the main argument. Christ's whole effort 
was to establish his Messiahship and in that connection to por- 
tray and exemplify the Father and to define the office of the 
Holy Spirit. It was Christ who taught the Triune God. The 
Trinity was not understood in the Old Testament dispensation. 
Even the purpose of the Messiah, who was devoutly looked for, 
was not understood, for the Jews expected in him a temporal 
deliverer. 

Because Christ did not come as a temporal deliverer, the 
Jews did not accept him; and because he constantly rebuked 
the Jewish hierarchy, that body sought his death — which was 
finally brought about by his claim to be the Son of God and one 
with God. 

It is not erroneous, we believe, to say that Unitarianism 
really started with the Sanhedrin, although perhaps it is not 
customary to date it that far back. We do not refer to the 
name but to the belief of the sect. At any rate, the denial of 
the deity of Christ, which started with the Sanhedrin, has never 
really ceased, as a theological doctrine, to have its followers. 

Discussions on the deity of Christ were simultaneous with 
the earliest speculations on the Logos. Toward the close of the 
second century, Theodotus and Artemon founded schools in 



26 Twentieth Century Christianity 

Rome. About the same time Beryllus and Praxeas also taught 
in Rome, and Noetus in Smyrna. In the third century, Sa- 
bellius announced his doctrine. Arianism originated in the 
fourth century, and was the parent of Socinianism, from which 
the later Unitarianism sprang. All of these teachers held to 
the belief in the indivisible unity. In other words, they dis- 
sented from the Trinitarian tenet. 

About the time of the Reformation, Ludwig Hetzer, Johann 
Denk, and Sebastian Frank in Germany, and Claudius in Swit- 
zerland, preached monotheism and the simple humanity of 
Christ. In the sixteenth century, Unitarianism was dissem- 
inated in Holland and France, and later in Poland, Transyl- 
vania, Prussia, and Silesia. But toward the close of the seven- 
teenth century, Unitarians in Europe, as a body, were known 
only in Transylvania. 

Traces of Unitarianism were found in England coeval with 
the Reformation. Dr. Owen states that the denial of the divin- 
ity of Christ was common throughout England in 1655. Before 
the close of the seventeenth century, Unitarians had places of 
worship in London. In 1825, the British and Foreign Unitarian 
Association was founded in London. 

From the first settlement of the New England colonies, there 
were modifications of the Puritanic creed. In 1785, the con- 
gregation of King's Chapel, Boston, eliminated Trinitarianism 
and the direct worship of Christ from the "Book of Common 
Prayer." In 1815, a controversy between Dr. Channing and 
Dr. Worcester resulted in the separation of the Unitarians from 
the Congregationalists, and the establishment of a sect. The 
ministers of a large number of Congregational churches, of 
Boston and throughout Massachusetts, with their flocks joined 
the movement. Harvard College was in their hands and re- 
mains so to-day. In 1825, the American Unitarian Association 
was organized in Boston. It holds biennial gatherings under 
the name "National Conference of Unitarians and other Chris- 
tian churches." 



The Wheat and Tares 27 

Going back to the origin of Unitarianism, we find that its 
parent was Socinianism and its grandparent was Arianism. 

Arianism was founded by Arius, a presbyter at Alexandria. 
Arius asserted that "there was a time when the Son was not 
coequal, since the Father who begot must be before the Son 
who was begotten and the latter therefore could not be eternal." 
Many prominent bishops sided with Arius and the most acute 
intellects of the church discussed the question. The general 
council of Nice, 325 A.D., attended by three hundred bishops, 
condemned Arius and declared the Son to be consubstantial 
with the Father. When Constantius, the son of Constantine, 
became sole ruler of the Roman Empire after the death of his 
brothers, Constantine and Constans, he supported the Arian 
decrees and Arianism became successful after a long contro- 
versy. 

The sect now became divided between strict and moderate 
Arians. Eusebius, of Csesarea, declared the Son to be similar 
in substance to the Father, and his followers were known as 
Semi-Arians. The prominent leaders of the Strict Arians 
maintained that the Son was dissimilar to God, of different 
essence and created out of nothing. Several attempts were 
made to heal these divisions, but the confusion became greater 
than ever. During all this controversy, first one party, then 
the other, was in the ascendency until the death of Constantius 
in 361. On the accession of Julian the Apostate, the Nicene 
party re-established themselves in Egypt, Gaul, Spain, and 
Greece, and later throughout the western countries. Although 
crushed out in the Roman Empire, Arianism for several cen- 
turies remained the religion of the Germanic tribes, but later 
gave place to the Catholic Church. In 744, Arianism as a sect 
became extinct. It often reappeared as a theological opinion. 

Socinianism was founded by Socinus, an Italian theologian, 
about 1574. He maintained that the Trinity was a pagan doc- 
trine ; that Christ was a created and inferior being. He denied 
the personality of the devil, the native and total depravity of 



28 Twentieth Century Christianity 

man, the vicarious atonement, and the eternity of punishment. 
His theory was that Christ was a man divinely commissioned, 
who had no existence before his conception by the Virgin Mary, 
that human sin was the imitation of Adam's sin, and that 
human salvation was the imitation and adoption of Christ's 
virtue; that the Bible was to be interpreted by human reason, 
and that its metaphors were not to be taken literally. The opin- 
ions of Socinus are still held by some churches in Holland, 
Switzerland, Great Britain, and the United States under the 
name Unitarian. 

But the acceptance of these doctrines among Unitarians 
varies according to the views of individuals. Some Unitarians 
accept the doctrine of the fall, but deny that its consequences 
destroy the innate rectitude of human nature. As to the atone- 
ment, Unitarian opinion ranges from a modification of the 
redeeming office of a Savior to the belief that Christ's mission 
was solely that of a teacher and exemplar. Some Unitarians 
regard the Gospel as designed by the Deity for the redemption 
of a fallen race; others as a recognition of natural religion, 
with precepts, truths, laws, motives, and hopes, exalting indi- 
vidual responsibility in character and life. 

From the foregoing we see that the Unitarian doctrine is 
purely the result of human speculation rather than of divine 
revelation. It depends for its existence on human reason and 
philosophy, rather than on the inspired record of Christ's own 
teachings. It is not of modern origin nor the fruit of modern 
knowledge as some of its leaders of to-day would have us be- 
lieve. It has had the benefit of time, intelligence, wealth, re- 
finement and influence, and yet to-day it is without any exten- 
sive force. Probably at no time in its history was Unitarianism 
weaker than to-day. In its early history, at times, it was op- 
posed by ecclesiastic and civil power, but at other times it was 
supported. At no time did it suffer more than has the true 
Christian church, yet the Evangelical church has grown steadily 
in power and influence 



The Wheat and Tares 29 

Christ said, "Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall 
give him, shall never thirst ; but the water that I shall give him 
shall be in him a well of water, springing up into everlasting 
life." That is what the Unitarian Church lacks — the life-giving 
power of Jesus Christ. Therefore it is dead while it lives. 

But the Unitarian Church of to-day undoubtedly ventures 
beyond the doctrinal limits of Doctor Channing, its first prom- 
inent leader in America, if we may judge from its present 
exponents. For Doctor Channing was intimately associated 
with Dr. Samuel Hopkins, a disciple of Jonathan Edwards, and 
when he was approved for the ministry in 1802, it was supposed 
that he would enlist on the side of extreme orthodoxy, although 
he stated later that even at that time he was an Arian but 
favored many of the opinions of Doctor Hopkins. But when 
the Congregational Church split into "liberal" and "orthodox" 
parties, Doctor Channing became the acknowledged head of the 
"liberal" or Unitarian party. He was opposed to Calvinism 
and the Trinitarian doctrine. But his system of views was 
complex and generally considered discordant. These difficulties 
were covered to some extent by his "charms of imagination 
and sentiments, linked with schemes of moral and social re- 
form." Doctor Channing would scarcely venture into the 
depths of skeptical thought which some of the Unitarian 
leaders of to-day dare to do. In fact, to-day, Science seems to 
have supplanted the Bible in the Unitarian mind, and the 
Scientific or Natural theologians appear to have the right of 
way in the Unitarian Church. These theologians are trying to 
undermine the old faith and to build up a new religion based 
on new discoveries of natural laws, creative forces, evolution, 
and previously unknown elements. 

SCIENTIFIC OR NATURAL THEOLOGY 

Now, our quarrel with the Scientific Theologian is based on 
five propositions : 

First, he misunderstands, misinterprets or misrepresents the 
Biblical statements. 



30 Twentieth Century Christianity 

Second, he identifies Christianity with man-made creeds 
rather than with the life and original teachings of Jesus. 

Third, he places the religious emphasis on the practical and 
social basis rather than on the Spiritual, and does not seem to 
understand that the practical and social application of religion 
is the spontaneous expression of the true fundamental reality — 
the inward Spiritual life. 

Fourth, he insists on confining religious truth to the test of 
material investigation. 

Fifth, because of his lack of Spiritual experience and of his 
misunderstanding of Scripture, he is not always able to associ- 
ate his Scientific knowledge in proper relation to his religious 
misconceptions, he at once discredits the Bible and the whole 
Christian system. 

One of the first things that the Natural theologian does, is 
to criticise the Biblical history of the creation. He starts off 
with the fact that Science has revealed the origin of the world 
to date back millions of years and that the great antiquity of 
man has been established beyond a doubt. As though this 
discovery antagonizes the Biblical story! This is a common 
error among this class of theologians. They overlook the fact 
that Revelation does not specify a definite time when the crea- 
tion took place. Revelation confines itself to a simple general 
statement — "In the beginning God created the heavens and the 
earth." Millions or even billions of years might be involved in 
that statement — "In the beginning." The argument hinges on 
how far back this period dates. There was a beginning, and it 
was in the beginning that God created the heavens and the 
earth. There was a period following the point of beginning 
when creation was in a chaotic condition. Then God evolved 
order out of the confused mass, and step by step completed his 
work as outlined in the first and second chapters of Genesis, 
and there have never been any discoveries to show that Genesis 
is incorrect in the order of succession. It is a natural and reas- 
onable order of succession. But it is an erroneous idea that 



The Wheat and Tares 31 

the Scriptures teach that the creation took place four thousand 
or five thousand years before Christ. There are no fixed dates 
in the Old Testament. The marginal dates usually shown have 
been arranged by calculating back from the known dates of 
certain events in later history. There is no certain chronology 
prior to the time of Abraham. 

The Scientist says : "Belief in God was largely founded on 
a view of the world which meant the direct intervention of God 
in creation and the possibility of constant miracle. Modern 
Science, and especially the work of Darwin, has shifted the 
whole ground of proof, and religion to-day never dreams of 
staking all on the supernatural interposition of God. The pre- 
supposition on which Science builds, is the law of Continuity. 
It will not give that up, because only by it can Science do its 
work. The old explanation of a mysterious thing as due to 
God's interfering with the laws of the universe, is to Science 
the one incredible thing. It will try any and every explanation 
before that and, even if all fail, will not accept that. Science 
does not deny the mystery. What it denies is the explanation 
of it as the suspension of law. It tries to account for the 
miracle ; and if it fails, lays it aside as something yet to be 
brought within the sweep of Natural law and one day ex- 
plained." 

By this statement, we must conclude that, although believ- 
ing that God established the Natural order of the universe, we 
must accept as a fact that the laws of Nature have become 
greater than the Supreme Being who established them. They 
are now beyond his control. They are outside his jurisdiction. 
It is admitted that pre-supposed Natural laws in certain in- 
stances have not prevented phenomena to appear contrary to 
previous experience, yet such miracles must not be accounted 
for as a peculiar act of God. It must be assumed that there 
will sometime be discovered an explanation within the realm of 
Natural law. The law of Continuity cannot be admitted to be 
subject to the will of God. 



32 Twentieth Century Christianity 

Can a true believer in the God of revelation accept that as 
a fact? Can he thus accept the denial of the omnipotence of 
God? We think not. At least, he must say to the scientist, 
"Thus far you may go but no farther." 

We do not claim that in respect to purely material things, 
God wills to disorganize the universe at any time, nor do we 
suppose that he has actually suspended the law of Continuity. 
But we claim that God rules in the universe and that he can 
overrule matter at any time in order to reveal or demonstrate 
his presence and will to mankind. And we insist that in apply- 
ing the test of Natural law to Spiritual matters, Scientists must 
not overlook the fact that, even in the Material world, Natural 
laws are overruled, and we contend that what can take place 
in the Natural world can also take place in the Spiritual realm 
in respect to these same laws. 

The law of gravity does not prevent the plant from growing 
upward from the earth. Gravitation has not been suspended, but 
Vitality overrules it. We do not find the law of Vitality in the 
stone. This law does not apply to the Inorganic world. To 
that extent it discontinues. The fact is, each Natural kingdom 
has its own set of laws which continue throughout that king- 
dom but not beyond it. Biological laws are continuous where 
there is life, just as Gravitation continues where there is mat- 
ter, and Spiritual laws continue where there is Spiritual life — 
or, agreeing with Doctor Drummond, Spiritual laws are not 
analogous but are actually the same laws which govern the 
Natural realm applied under comparative conditions. But "laws 
are only modes of operation — not themselves operators." Laws 
have neither substance nor energy. 

While the Scientist flounders around seeking from Nature 
an explanation of the miracle, the Christian turns to God. The 
Scientist cannot explain the germinating life of the seed. He 
knows the process. He knows the result. But the life he 
cannot define. All life is a miracle. The Scientist cannot put 



The Wheat and Tares 33 

life into a dead seed. Life, vegetable or animal, Natural or 
Spiritual, is of God alone. 

The Scientist says, "A statement or proposition is true when 
it agrees with the facts confirmed by experience." And he says, 
"It does not follow that an experience is false if it is not 
corroborated by every one we meet." He makes an allowance 
for the difference of capacity in different individuals. He says : 
"We pay no heed to the judgment of a blind man on questions 
of color, or of a stone-deaf man on music. Perhaps only one 
man out of a dozen will hear the shrill squeak of a bat. A 
majority of eleven to one will not — or should not — convince 
the minority of one that he has heard no sound." 

Now, we want to press home that argument to the Scientist 
on the question of Spiritual life. Because he, living only in the 
Natural realm, has no capacity for knowledge of the Spiritual 
realm, is no evidence that there is no Spiritual realm, nor that 
there is no such thing as Spiritual experience on the part of one 
who claims to have received Spiritual life. 

The Scientist says, "Science deals with what has been and 
is : religion deals with what is to be." In regard to religion, 
the Scientist is wrong again. We claim that the Christian reli- 
gion also deals with what has been and is, as well as with what 
is to be. Christianity deals with Spiritual life and that has 
existed since before the world was created, and emphatically 
since man was created, and it will exist throughout eternity. 
The Christian religion deals with God's relation to man and 
man's relation to God, and is based on historical facts — revela- 
tion and experience past and present, and a faith in things to 
come. 

The Scientist says, "You cannot explain a picture by the 
chemistry of colors." No. Neither can you explain Spiritual 
experience by Scientific calculations or Philosophic deductions. 

The Scientist says : "To-day practically no one will attempt 
either to defend or deny the proofs of God and religion that 
used to be offered. We neither accept them nor refute them ; 



34 Twentieth Century Christianity 

but simply ignore them. They are dead issues, because the 
whole world has swung away from them. There is a modern 
point of view which gets its work in with all of us more or 
less." 

Here we see the effort of the Scientist to drag religious 
thought into the great whirl of change taking place in Scientific 
thought. He cries, "Evolution! Evolution!" New ideas are 
being evolved in every branch of science, and so he claims that 
religion must get in the swing of change and accept modern 
views based on modern discoveries. And so the Unitarian 
bolsters up his doctrines on the cry from the universities which 
demands that religion be made over to meet advanced thought 
in things material. Modern religion, therefore, must expunge 
all belief in the miraculous which cannot be accounted for by 
Natural laws. Religion must be tested by Natural reason. But 
the acid test of religion is Vitality, and the backbone of religion 
is Stability. Without Vitality and Stability, religion lacks force 
and inspires no confidence. Experience proves Natural religion 
to be dead, but Spiritual religion to have Life abundantly, which 
is as a fountain of joy springing up into an ever-increasing 
faith. Creeds, the invention of man, have changed, but the 
fundamentals of the Christian religion derived from the in- 
spired Word of God, have never changed and never will change. 

"Nature is mute : we question her in vain, 
And feel that God alone can make all plain. 
None other can expound his mysteries, 
Console the feeble, and illuminate the wise. 
Left guideless everywhere, no way is seen. 
Man seeks in vain some reed upon which to lean." 

— Voltaire. 

Some statements taken from a sermon by Dr. Minot Judson 
Savage, delivered in the Church of the Messiah, New York, 
November, 1897, show that certain Unitarian sermons published 
recently as new thoughts are merely rehashes of former utter- 
ances. 



The Wheat and Tares 35 

Doctor Savage said : "I propose to try to make clear what 
it is that the world has lost as the result of the advance of 
modern knowledge, and what, if anything, it has gained. 

"It is modern knowledge, increasing knowledge, larger, 
clearer light, that takes away the old beliefs. But if these old 
beliefs are not true, it simply means that we are discovering 
what is true — that is, having a clearer view and vision of God's 
ways and methods of governing the world. 

"First: Modern knowledge has taken away the old uni- 
verse. That is, that little, tiny, playhouse affair, not so large 
as our solar system, which, in the first chapter of Genesis, God 
is reported to have made — as a carpenter working from the 
outside makes a house — inside of six days. That little universe 
of Genesis is absolutely gone." 

But Doctor Savage does not say where it has gone, nor what 
he has discovered that is not covered by that statement in Gen- 
esis, "The heavens and the earth were finished and all the host 
of them." 

"Secondly: The God of the Old Testament and the God of 
most of the creeds has been taken away. That God who let the 
good little world that he made, slip out of his control into the 
hands of the devil, etc. 

"Thirdly : The story of Eden, the creation of man, and then 
immediately the fall of man, and the resulting doctrine of total 
depravity — this has been taken away. 

"Then the old theory of the Bible has been taken away. The 
theory that makes it a book without error or flaw, and makes us 
under obligation to receive all its teachings as the veritable 
word of God, though they seem hideous, blasphemous, immoral, 
degrading, or not — this is gone. 

"Then, in the next place, the blood of atonement is gone. 
That means that the Eternal Father either will not or cannot 
receive back to his heart his own erring, mistaken, wandering 
children unless the only begotten Son of God is slaughtered, 



36 Twentieth Century Christianity 

and we are plunged beneath the ocean of blood — that has been 
taken away. 

"Belief in the devil has been taken away. 

"Belief in endless punishment has been taken away." 

These are the things that have been taken away, says Doctor 
Savage. So say all of the Unitarian champions and the Scien- 
tific Theologians to-day. Like so much rubbish they have been 
thrown to the ash-man and carted away to the dump. Mr. 
Modern Knowledge has cleaned the theological house. With 
a wave of the hand he has closed the argument, and the Uni- 
tarian and Scientific Theologian, themselves, have decided that 
they have won their case. Can we imagine a court of chancery 
hearing only the plaintiff and then deciding against the defend- 
ant? We think not. In this case the defendant objects to a 
decision rendered solely by the plaintiff. 

Christianity is a warfare against the world and the devil. 
The church of Christ is militant on earth and will be triumphant 
in heaven. 

"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seem- 
eth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may 
be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. 
For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 
And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that 
they are vain. (I. Cor. 3 : 18, 20.) 

And so we submit the following arguments as our mite in 
the militant work being done so much more ably by others, 
and may they be of some help to you, dear Reader. 
Very truly, 

D. M. Rowe. 



"The world is a scene of changes ; to be con- 
stant in nature were inconstancy." 

— Cowley. 



The Wheat and Tares 2>7 

'The world is still deceived with ornament. 
In law, what plea so tainted and corrupt 
But, being seasoned with a gracious voice, 
Obscures the show of evil ? In religion, 
What damned error, but some sober brow 
Will bless it and approve it with a text, 
Hiding the grossness with fair ornament ? 

The seeming truth which cunning times put on 
To entrap the wisest." 

— Bassanio, in "Merchant of Venice," Shakesp 



eare. 



"It is true that a little philosophy inclineth a 
man's mind to atheism, but depth of philosophy 
bringeth men's minds about to religion." 

— Lord Francis Bacon. 



"The laws of nature are but the ways in which 
the great, almighty Lawgiver operates ; they 
have no efficiency except as channels of his will ; 
rightly understood they cannot but be seen to 
agree with his written Word." 

— Try on Edwards. 



"The laws of nature are not, as some modern 
naturalists seem to suppose, iron chains by which 
the living God, so to say, is bound hand and foot ; 
but elastic cords, rather, which he can lengthen 
or shorten at his sovereign will." 

— Philip Schaff. 



'&' 



38 Twentieth Century Christianity 

THE OLD, OLD STORY 

I love to tell the story 

Of unseen things above, 
Of Jesus and his glory, 

Of Jesus and his love ; 
I love to tell the story, 

Because I know it 's true ; 
It satisfies my longings 

As nothing else will do. 

I love to tell the story ; 

More wonderful it seems 
Than all the golden fancies 

Of all our golden dreams. 
I love to tell the story ; 

It did so much for me ; 
And that is just the reason 

I tell it now to thee. 

I love to tell the story ; 

'T is pleasant to repeat 
What seems each time I tell it 

More wonderfully sweet. 
I love to tell the story, 

For some have never heard 
The message of salvation 

From God's own Holy Word. 

I love to tell the story ; 

For those who know it best 
Seem hungering and thirsting 

To hear it like the rest. 
And when, in scenes of glory, 

I sing the new, new song, 
'T will be— the Old, Old Story 

That I have loved so long. 



TWENTIETH CENTURY CHRISTIANITY 
WHEAT AND TARES 

By 

D. M. Rowe 



Article One 
WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? 

MUCH is being said and written at present on the subject 
of twentieth century Christianity and the Christianity 
of the future, most of which is along heterodox lines. 
The writer feels it a duty and a privilege in this article and 
some future articles, to attempt some words along orthodox 
lines of thought. In this attempt, if we succeed in gathering up 
from many sources, convictions and impressions, and in cen- 
centrating them in one focus and expressing them, we shall 
feel satisfied. 

First, then, what is Christianity? It is defined as the reli- 
gion of Christians — the system of doctrines and precepts taught 
by Christ. Then what does the title "Christ" signify? It is 
defined "the Anointed One," synonymous with the Hebrew, 
"Messiah." Next, as constant reference is made to "the church," 
what do we understand by "the church" ? 

The church is simply organized Christianity, the physical 
representation on earth of the kingdom of God. The term in 
its broad sense does not refer to denominations. The early 
church knew nothing of denominations ; these are the inven- 
tions of man. Orthodox churches are merely groups of Chris- 
tians. Certain denominations are merely groups of Christians 
who emphasize particular ordinances or customs, and, in the 
main, the principal difference is in regard to organization. Al- 
most without exception, all orthodox denominations agree on 
the essentials, namely : belief in the Bible as the inspired Word 
of God ; in God as the Creator and Father of us all ; in the deity 
of Christ ; in the virgin birth ; in the teachings and miracles of 
Christ; in his death, resurrection, and ascension, and that he 
ever liveth to make intercession for us ; that in his name only 
must we be saved from perdition, and that through repentance, 



42 Twentieth Century Christianity 

acceptance, and baptism ; belief in the Holy Spirit as the third 
person in the Trinity ; in a personal devil ; in heaven, and hell ; 
and a final judgment for all. 

Christians believe in the mercy of God, but they also believe 
in the justice of God. They believe in man as a free moral 
agent. He has the power and freedom to reject God and his 
Son, Jesus Christ. Likewise, he has the power and freedom 
to accept. Inasmuch as the Scriptures clearly teach that we 
can only approach God through his Son, Jesus Christ, when 
one accepts he becomes a Christian, namely, a believer in and 
a follower of Christ. 

All of the above essentials are clearly taught by Paul in his 
epistles and were undoubtedly the creed of the early church as 
they are of the church of to-day. 

TWENTIETH CENTURY CHRISTIANITY 

What, then, is so-called twentieth century Christianity? It 
is nothing more than first century Christianity, for God is the 
same yesterday, to-day, and forever. God does not change, 
God's laws do not change. They were perfect in the beginning, 
and perfection cannot improve. Man changes. Science and 
philosophy change. There was a science and a philosophy of 
the dark ages ; there was a science and a philosophy of the 
middle ages ; there is a science and a philosophy of the twen- 
tieth century ; and there will be a science and a philosophy of 
the future. But the same scientific and philosophic laws existed 
in the dark ages as exist to-day, only man had not discovered 
them. They have been revealed to him gradually. The laws 
are God's laws ; the discoveries are man's through God's reve- 
lations. 

But increased knowledge may work harm as well as good. 
Festus said to Paul, "Much learning doth make thee mad." 
This was not true of Paul, but it does seem to be true of some 
twentieth century scientists and philosophers. They manage 
to string the whole alphabet after their names like the tail of a 
kite; thus they are men of letters and they become puffed up. 



The Wheat and Tares 43 

They have become so soused in Natural law that they have 
blinded themselves to all Spiritual law. They overlook the 
proverb of Solomon, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of 
wisdom." God has established Spiritual law as well as Natural 
law, and each branch has its own separate and distinct field ; 
but our modern philosopher proposes to overthrow Spiritual 
law and make Natural law cover both fields in defiance of God. 
Thus he sets about to establish a modern religion professed to 
be based on scientific research and he calls it "twentieth century 
Christianity," whereas it is nothing short of twentieth century 
infidelity. This is only another invention of the devil to de- 
ceive the world. He wraps his cloven hoof in the raiment of 
Christ, thinking the raiment will hide the hoof. 

There is a difference between the broad term, religion, and 
the definite term, Christianity. There is not and never has been 
a people without a religion of some kind, be they of the highest 
civilized nations or the lowest heathen tribes. Any sort of 
Spiritual belief may properly be termed religion, but there is 
only one Christian religion and that is as already outlined. For 
any sect to deny Christ as the Messiah or the Anointed One, that 
is to deny his deity, is prohibition from assuming the title of 
Christian or of calling its doctrines Christianity. Let it be called 
religion, but not Christianity. Scripture tells us that "the dis- 
ciples were called Christians first in Antioch." This was an epi- 
thet applied by the Greeks in derision. But to-day almost every 
cult adopts the title. Why? Because it is quite impossible to 
interest any one in a religion that does not profess to be founded 
on Christ. The Bible, no matter how distorted, and Christ, no 
matter how much he is crucified afresh and put to an open 
shame, both must be claimed as the basis of the peculiar creeds 
if there is any hope for success. 

AUTOMATIC CHRISTIANITY 

Now, our philosopher tells us that a man automatically be- 
comes a Christian just as soon as he happens to get a good char- 



44 Twentieth Century Christianity 

acter, even though he be in ignorance that Christ ever lived. In 
view of the foregoing, the absurdity of this statement needs no 
emphasis. Can any one tell how a man just happens to get a 
good character? A good character is a matter of constant 
struggle and careful cultivation both to get it and also to keep 
it. It may be in part hereditary, but that simply means the 
result of cultivation generations back. This, in the liberal 
sense as man sees character. A good character as God sees 
character, means dependence on a higher Power. No good 
character was ever born that did not have a strain of bad char- 
acter along with the good. Consequently, there is no good 
character that will not succumb to temptation under sufficient 
pressure unless sustained by a higher Power than human 
power. David fell. Why? He tells us, "Behold, I was shapen 
in iniquity." Momentarily forgetting God, the strain of iniquity 
overpowered him. Solomon fell. Why? Because he became 
so enamored of his heathen wives that he drifted away from 
God. What sustained Joseph in his great temptation? His 
answer, "How can I do this great wickedness and sin against 
God ?" His loyalty to God saved him. What sustained Daniel ? 
"He kneeled three times a day and prayed as he did aforetime." 
Prayer to God for strength saved him. 

Again we ask, does any one just happen to get a good char- 
acter? Is it not always and ever a struggle? Will any intelli- 
gent man allow himself to be led into such a quagmire of decep- 
tion? How can any sane person believe in the possibility of 
automatic Christianity? The possibility of being a Christian 
without knowing Christ, by simply happening to get a good 
character — this is certainly absurdity run riot. 



"Man, when he resteth and assureth himself 
upon divine protection and favor, gathereth a 
force and faith which human nature in itself 
could not obtain; therefore, atheism is in all 
respects hateful, so in this, that it depriveth 



The Wheat and Tares 45 

human nature of the means to exalt itself above 
human frailty." 

— Lord Francis Bacon. 



"Let not a man trust his victory over his nat- 
ture too far; for nature will lie buried a great 
time, and yet revive upon the occasion, or temp- 
tation." 

— Lord Francis Bacon. 



"Some, whatsoever is beyond their reach, will 
seem to despise, or make light of it as imperti- 
nent or curious : and so would have their ignor- 
ance seem judgment." 

— Lord Francis Bacon. 



Article Two 
IS THE BIBLE GENUINE? 

TWENTIETH century Christianity is wholly dependent on 
the Bible for its existence. Logically, the next ques- 
tion for discussion is the genuineness of the Bible. Is 
the Bible genuine? Is it the inspired Word of God? If not 
inspired of God, it is full of error and it is absolutely of no 
value as a medium of revelation of God to man, and we are 
still in as much of Spiritual darkness as were the ancient Greek 
philosophers. If it is inspired of God, it cannot contain error, 
for God is perfect and all his works are perfect. 

Destructive critics tell us that the Bible was not written for 
three hundred years or more after Christ, therefore it contains 
much spurious matter — fancies, superstitions, and legends which 
have been inserted by various writers. By this means they en- 
deavor to undermine those portions which involve the miracu- 
lous and the laws of the Spiritual world. What are the facts ? 

OLD TESTAMENT 

The first record of written scripture is Exodus 24: 12 (B.C. 
1491) : God called Moses up into Mt. Sinai and said, "I will 
give thee tables of stone, and a law and commandments which 
I have written.'' Deuteronomy 31 : 26 (B.C. 1451) : Moses or- 
dered the books of the law placed inside the Ark of the Cove- 
nant. II. Chronicles 34 : 14 and II. Kings 22 : 8 : Hilkiah found 
the book of the law of Moses (Pentateuch, or five books) in 



The Wheat and Tares 47 

the house of the Lord (B.C. 624). Jeremiah 36: 2 (B.C. 606) : 
the Lord commanded Jeremiah, "Take thee a roll of a book, 
and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee 
against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, 
from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even 
unto this day." When King Jehoiakim heard what was in the 
book, he sent for it, read a portion of it, then cut it up and 
threw it into the fire and burned it. This is the first record we 
have of a destructive critic. Afterward, the Lord commanded 
Jeremiah to rewrite the book. This was done. My dear de- 
structive critics, you may depend upon it, when God said, "My 
words shall not pass away," he meant it. Daniel 9:2 (B.C. 
553) refers to learning from the prophecies of Jeremiah. Zech- 
ariah 9:2 (B.C. 518) refers to the law and former prophets, 
showing that the books of Moses and the words of the prophets 
up to that date had been preserved in writing, and that these 
were not mere traditions. Nehemiah tells how Ezra read the 
book of the law in the street before the congregation (B.C. 
445). Ezra and the Great Synagogue determined the canon of 
the law in its final shape, and Nehemiah gathered together the 
acts of the kings, the prophets, and of David for a library for 
the second temple, about B.C. 432. 

Josephus speaks of twenty-two books accepted as divine, 
five of Moses covering an interval of about three thousand 
years, thirteen books of the prophets, and four books of hymns. 
He says, from the death of Artaxerxes (B.C. 424) no one had 
dared to add to or change any of the sacred writings. The 
Jewish canon was therefore settled in the time of Ezra and 
Nehemiah. Josephus (A.D. 37-100) distinctly says that his 
Greek translation was taken from the Hebrew scriptures. The 
scriptures were found in the various synagogues where they 
were read and discussed. With about six exceptions, the whole 
of the Jewish canon is quoted in the New Testament. Our 
thirty-nine books correspond with the Jewish canon. 



48 Twentieth Century Christianity 

Josephus against Apion tells how carefully the Scriptures 
were kept. "Our forefathers committed that matter to the high 
priests and the prophets, and these records have been written 
all along down to the present time with the utmost accuracy 
(A.D. 37-100). Our forefathers did not only appoint the best 
of these priests, and those that attended upon the divine wor- 
ship, for that design from the beginning, but made provision 
that the stock of priests should continue unmixed and pure." 
"Every one is not permitted of his own accord to be a writer, nor 
is any disagreement found in what is written, they being only 
prophets that have written the original and earliest account of 
things as they learned them of God himself by inspiration." 

These books have been subjected to the strictest scrutiny 
and criticism by ancient Jewish authorities, by scholars ancient 
and modern, and by successive councils of the Christian church, 
and have all been admitted to be genuine. 

NEW TESTAMENT 

The critical examination of the New Testament books has 
been no less severe than that of the Old Testament. It is true 
that no original manuscripts of the evangelists or apostles exist. 
They were worn out in the early generation. But numerous 
copies were made from the originals for circulation among the 
different groups of Christians scattered abroad. It is from such 
copies that our English Bible has been made up. These manu- 
scripts are divided into an Alexandrine, Latin, Asiatic, and a 
Byzantine text. After undergoing so many copyings and being 
scattered to such an extent, of all the very many manuscripts 
that were gathered from so many different sources for the com- 
pilation of our English Bible, comparatively few variations of 
any importance were found, taking in the sum total of them all. 
Most of the variations pertained to spelling or inflection; but 
of the few doubtful readings there were always a sufficient 
number of texts in agreement to verify the sense. 



The Wheat and Tares 49 

Early testimony concerning these manuscripts comes from 
such men as Polycarp, a disciple of St. John, Clement of Rome, 
Ignatius, and others contemporary with the apostles. These 
men quote the Gospels and nearly all of the Epistles. Some 
others who have listed, quoted, and criticized the books of the 
New Testament, and who have conceded them to be inspired or 
"holy," are Irenaeus,- Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, 
Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Epiphaneus, etc., 
respectively living from A.D. 135 to A.D. 402. 

Now, though necessarily brief, we believe we have shown 
that our Bible has not been made up in any such careless or 
speculative manner as some critics try to teach. 

OTHER PROOFS OF INSPIRATION 

Bacon, on Atheism, says: "While the mind of man looketh 
upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them and 
go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confed- 
erate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and 
Deity. It is not credible that an army of infinite small portions, 
or seeds unplaced, should have produced order and beauty with- 
out a divine marshal." This is one strong argument favorable 
to the inspiration of the Scriptures. For in the Bible we have 
a collection of sixty-six books written by at least forty-four 
different authors during a period of from fifteen hundred to 
two thousand years. These writers lived and wrote in different 
countries, far apart in space and time, some in Egypt, some in 
Arabia, some in Palestine, in Babylonia, in Persia, in the cities 
of Asia Minor and Greece, and in the city of Rome. Some 
wrote when the Pharaohs ruled, some when Solomon built the 
temple, when the Assyrians roamed in Mesopotamia, some when 
the Caesars ruled the world. They wrote in different languages, 
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. They wrote in different forms, 
prose, poetry, history, biography, legislative, philosophy. The 
writers were from different ranks of society, kings, fishermen, 
shepherds, and statesmen, rich and poor, uneducated and 



50 Twentieth Century Christianity 

learned. They wrote under widely different political, social, 
and religious conditions, writing from their own point of view, 
in their own way with marked individuality. They treated of 
nearly every theme of human thought. "Yet in all this diversity 
there is such a unity in aim, such a oneness in all the parts, 
such a consistency in teaching concerning God and man, sin 
and salvation, that they have been bound together and called 
preeminently 'The Book.' ' : There is a life in this book not 
found in any other. It contains one doctrine of God, of sin, 
salvation, heaven, hell, and of duty. Very remarkable! "No 
other collection could be made of books written at such widely 
separated times and places, by such different men under such 
a variety of circumstances, even upon a single theme, that 
would manifest such a unity of thought and purpose. There is 
but one explanation. The Bible must have been the product 
of one mind that planned and directed the whole of it from the 
beginning to the end, and that mind could be no other than 
God." 

No other book could have survived such opposition as has 
the Bible. It has passed through fire, water, and blood. No 
other book has been so hated by bad men, and so abused by good 
men. Put under the ban of excommunication, criticized, ridi- 
culed, and burnt, every possible resource has been exhausted to 
destroy it, yet it has gone steadily onward. Every century has 
brought forth opponents, scores of destructive critics have 
arisen, each with his new discoveries of fatal flaws that would 
destroy its power. But the critics die. Their assertions are 
proved erroneous; and the grand old Book gains strength by 
leaps and bounds. 



"Last eve I paused beside a blacksmith's door, 
And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime ; 
Then, looking in, I saw upon the floor, 

Old hammers worn with beating years of time. 



The Wheat and Tares 51 

' 'How many anvils have you had ?' said I, 
'To wear and batter all those hammers so?' 

'Just one,' said he ; then, with a twinkling eye, 
'The anvil wears the hammers out, you know.' 

'And so I thought the anvil of God's Word 
For ages skeptic blows have beat upon ; 

Yet, though the noise of falling blows was 1 heard, 
The anvil is unharmed, the hammers gone." 



THE BIBLE 

"The Bible is the only source of Christian 
truth; — the only rule of the Christian life; — the 
only book that unfolds to us the realities of 
eternity. There is no book like the Bible for 
excellent wisdom and use." 

— Sir M. Hale. 



"Bad men or devils would not have written 
the Bible, for it condemns them and their works ; 
good men or angels could not have written it, 
for in saying it was from God, when it was but 
their own invention, they would have been guilty 
of falsehood, and thus could not have been good. 
The only remaining Being who could have writ- 
ten it, is God — its real Author. 

"The Scriptures teach us the best way of liv- 
ing, the noblest way of suffering, and the most 
comfortable way of dying." 

— Flavel. 



"It is a belief in the Bible, the fruit of deep 
meditation, which has served me as a guide of 
my moral and literary life. I have found it a 
capital safely invested, and richly productive of 
interest." 

— Goethe. 



"The longer you read the Bible, the more you 
will like it ; it will grow sweeter and sweeter ; and 
the more you get into the spirit of it, the more 
you will get into the spirit of Christ." 

— Romaine. 



The Wheat and Tares 53 

"The general diffusion of the Bible is the most 
effectual way to civilize and humanize mankind ; 
to purify and exalt the general system of public 
morals; to give efficacy to the just precepts of 
international and municipal law ; to enforce the 
observance of prudence, temperance, justice, and 
fortitude ; and to improve all the relations of 
social and domestic life." 

— Chancellor Kent. 



"Scholars may quote Plato in their studies, but 
the hearts of millions will quote the Bible at their 
daily toil, and draw strength from its inspiration, 
as the meadows draw it from the brook." 

— Conway. 



"The Bible is one of the greatest blessings 
bestowed by God on the children of men. It has 
God for its author; salvation for its end; and 
truth without any mixture for its matter. It is 
all pure, all sincere; nothing too much, nothing 
wanting." 

— Locke. 



"The man of one book is always formidable ; 
but when that book is the Bible, he is irresist- 
ible." 

— W. M. Taylor. 



Article Three 
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF GOD? 

WHEN Paul walked the streets of Athens, he saw on 
every hand temples, images, and groves, erected to 
gods and goddesses of every known act, impulse, sub- 
stance, and art. He also saw a number of altars inscribed, 
"To the Unknown God." The Greeks, fearing that they may 
have overlooked some god and might, therefore, incur his 
wrath, erected these altars, to be on the safe side. Paul took 
this inscription for his text and preached an exceedingly strong 
sermon declaring unto them the God whom they ignorantly wor- 
shiped, and overturning all the theories of the Greek philoso- 
phers concerning their gods, creation, immortality, and salva- 
tion. 

Paul began his sermon with the thought of omnipotence. 
God created the world and all things therein. This is the first 
conception of God in nearly every mind. With this thought 
God begins to reveal himself. It is the first thought in the 
Bible : "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." 
For centuries philosophers speculated on this subject — creation. 
Many of them thought they had settled it with the theory of 
homogeneous association of atoms. But they were unable to 
account for this congenial association. What caused the atoms 
to associate in all their various groups? How did the little 
senseless atoms know to what group they belonged? A satis- 
factory answer was not forthcoming. It was the revelation of 
God to Moses, that in the beginning he created heaven and 
earth and all living things, that gave to man a satisfactory so- 
lution of the question. Thus Paul argued with the Greek phi- 
losophers. 

So now, in discussing God's nature, we start with his om>- 
nipotence. In order to account for creation, it is necessary to 



The Wheat and Tares 55 

concede the existence of some ruling principle, a first cause. 
This thought dawned upon the old philosophers before the real 
facts of Jewish revelation became known to them. Hence it 
has not been a difficult thing for men to accept the God of rev- 
elation as the Creator. This being the easiest point of corre- 
spondence, it naturally becomes first. Any one who denies God 
to this extent is a fool. "The fool hath said in his heart, there 
is no God." But even here, as Bacon said, "he rather saith it 
by rote to himself as that he would have, than he can thoroughly 
believe it, or be persuaded of it." 

god's authority 

As Creator, then, God has authority over the created, to con- 
trol, limit, arrange in order, determine courses, decree laws, and 
maintain harmony. Were this not so, the created would be 
greater than the Creator. That would mean chaos and anarchy. 
God, then, is Supreme Ruler over all creation. His will dom- 
inates all things. 

To create order, God must embody within himself the law 
of order. He must be unchangeable, immutable. He is. "The 
counsel of the Lord standeth forever, the thoughts of his heart 
to all generations." Thus sang the Psalmist. 

To be able to create, to establish law and order, God must 
be omniscient — he must know all things. He does. The whole 
first chapter of Genesis testifies to this. We are told, "God saw 
that it was good." Everything was measured by God's stand- 
ard of goodness and perfection. He knows what is good and 
perfect. Knowledge and wisdom originated with God. His 
knowledge permeates all creation. Job says, "Hell is naked be- 
fore him, and destruction hath no covering." Again, "His eyes 
are upon the ways of man, and he seeth all his goings." Solo- 
man wrote, "The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding 
the evil and the good." 



56 Twentieth Century Christianity 

OMNIPRESENCE 

Omnipresence is another attribute which must be possessed 
by a great Creator, that he may be at all times in correspond- 
ence with his creatures to maintain his authority and minister 
to their necessities. God is omnipresent. David said : "Whither 
shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy 
presence ? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there : if I make 
my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the 
morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea ; even there 
shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me." 

A god who can create perfection and harmony and beauty, 
must possess these attributes. He must possess them ethically. 
Therefore, God must be holy. He must be the maximum of 
holiness. Being holy, he will demand holiness of man created 
in his own image. God told Moses to say to the people, "Sanc- 
tify yourselves, therefore, and be ye holy, for I am the Lord, 
your God." The Psalmist wrote, "The Lord is righteous in all 
his ways, and holy in all his works." Now, a degraded man, 
debauched in vice, will tolerate and even enjoy degradation, be- 
cause he is hardened in sin and wholly out of correspondence 
with righteousness. But the further a man is removed from 
vice, to just that degree will its horror appear to him; until in 
the higher plane of morality vice appalls him — he shudders at 
its presence. Can we imagine, then, a holy God, who would 
say to one standing in his presence, "Put off the shoes from 
off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground," 
— with what degree of horror must he turn his face from sin ! 
And remember this : God considers as a sin any act of rebellion 
against his laws. 

The justice of such a holy God must be unequivocal. It is 
absolute. When God said to Adam, "In the day that thou 
eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die," he meant it. The devil 
said, "Thou shalt not surely die," and man took the devil's 
word for it, just as many are accepting the devil's contradic- 
tions to-day. Man by disobedience did provoke the curse of 



The Wheat and Tares 57 

death, and we know it to-day. God did not create disease, 
sorrow, suffering, and death. These are the result of sin — of 
disobedience to God's laws. Death not only applies to the body 
but also to the soul. God said to Ezekiel, "The soul that sinneth, 
it shall die." God cannot endure sin. He cannot have it about 
him. It must be annihilated from his kingdom. If it must 
exist, it must be segregated outside of his dwelling-place. This 
is God's immutable law, and the Bible rings with its warning 
from cover to cover. This is just as positive as anything in the 
Scripture. The physical punishment of the Jewish nation from 
time to time was prophetic of the Spiritual punishment of sin. 

We are clearly taught that all have gone astray and there is 
none perfect. Our only hope, therefore, is in the mercy of God. 
In Mt. Sinai, God said he is "the Lord God, merciful and gra- 
cious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keep- 
ing mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression 
and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty ; visiting the 
iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the child- 
ren's children, unto the third and fourth generation." There 
is no lack of stableness here. God is merciful and forgiving; 
but note: he by no means clears the guilty. His mercy and 
forgiveness are not automatically shed upon the guilty. The 
guilty must perform some act to secure mercy and forgiveness ; 
otherwise he remains guilty. Then what? "Thus saith the 
Lord God: repent, and turn yourselves from your idols; and 
turn away your faces from all your abomination." 

PERSONALITY OF GOD 

Rather than accept God as he reveals himself in Scripture, 
some are spinning mysterious phrases purporting to be their 
belief in what constitutes God. These ambiguous descriptions 
indicate that few of them really know what they do believe. 
However, they do deny God a personality. God does not veil 
himself in mystery. He wants man to know him and to know 
just as much about him as the mind of man is competent to 



58 Twentieth Century Christianity 

grasp. He has tried to reveal himself to man in material ways 
known as superhuman and supernatural, but perceptible to 
man's intelligence. He has revealed a personality. We have 
one positive statement : God is a spirit. That does not preclude 
a personalty. What do we mean by spirit? Life; living sub- 
stance considered independent of corporeal existence ; an intel- 
ligence conceived of apart from any physical organization or 
embodiment. What is personality? The personality of a man 
is not merely his physical make-up. It is rather his intelligence, 
character, will, disposition, force. The corporeal make-up is 
merely a convenient bit of machinery through which the per- 
sonality is expressed and by which it may get into correspond- 
ence with its environments. 

Let us put the two together, spirit and personality. Spirit 
is the life, the intelligence, the ego. Personality is the individ- 
uality of that spirit. Man living in a material world, dealing 
with material things, needs a material body for the expression 
of his intelligence, his will, etc. God, living in a spirit world, 
dealing with things in a Spiritual way, needs no material body ; 
however, he is none the less an individual being. Christ in 
heaven needed no material body. Christ on earth, dealing with 
material man in a material way required a material body. 
Chris! is just as personal in heaven as on earth. God can see, 
he can hear, he can speak, he can feel. He is sensitive. He has 
the power of expression. God is personal. He wants us to 
think of him as a real being. Then let us not worship at the 
altar of "the Unknown God," neither worship a god made by 
the mind of man. Let us be satisfied with God as he has re- 
vealed himself to us, and rejoice that we have the privilege to 
worship him. 



Article Four 
IS THERE A PERSONAL DEVIL? 

IT may seem like an undeserved honor to the devil to intro- 
duce him at this time. However, we do not rank him here 
because of his virtue, but from a logical necessity in the 
course of our arguments. Hereafter the element of evil will be 
involved and we must know its principle. 

Many would like to eliminate the devil. The writer would 
do so had he the power. But we cannot do this by a mental 
process any more than we can eliminate any other existing fact 
by merely trying to think it does not exist. 

We are told that the devil is a myth adopted by the Jews 
from the Chaldeans or Persians during the Babylonian captivity. 
But Moses recorded the fact of a devil nearly a thousand years 
before the Babylonian captivity. Again, we are told that the 
devil was an invention of the priests for the purpose of fright- 
ening the Jews so they would submit to a priestly graft. Any 
one who cares to read the Scriptural record of the setting aside 
of the Levites for religious service, and of how they were 
warned to perform their duties and conduct religious services 
and ceremonies strictly according to God's laws, will readily 
see the absurdity of this statement. Nevertheless, please note 
that nowhere in the Old Testament is the devil held up to the 
people by the priests for any purpose. The few references to 
the devil or devils are of an entirely different nature and are 
not made by priests. Again, we are told that the idea of a devil 
originated with Milton. But where did Milton get his founda- 
tion for "Paradise Lost" ? Bless you, he got got it from the 
Bible. Refer to Revelation, chapter twelve; we find, "There 
appeared a wonder in heaven, behold, a great red dragon. And 
his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast 
them to the earth. And there was a war in heaven: Michael 



60 Twentieth Century Christianity 

and his angels fought against the dragon: and the dragon 
fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their 
place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was 
cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which 
deceiveth the whole world ; he was cast out into the earth, and 
his angels were cast out with him. Therefore, rejoice, ye 
heavens, and ye that dwell therein. Woe to the inhabiters of 
the earth and of the sea : for the devil is come down unto you, 
having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a 
short time." This is from the vision of John on the Isle of 
Patmos. Is it a myth? No. It is an historical fact described, 
in part, allegorically. Prove the fact. 

CERTAIN PROOF 

When the seventy returned to the Lord from their field 
work, they said, "Lord, even the devils are subject unto us 
through thy name." Jesus replied (Luke 10: 18), "I beheld 
Satan as lightning fall from heaven." Here is a positive state- 
ment made by Jesus Christ. Did our Lord tell the truth or 
did he lie ? It is either the truth or a lie. There is no equivoca- 
tion. But then, we may be told that Christ did not make the 
statement, that it was incorporated by Luke. We have already 
covered such assertions in our argument on the inspiration of 
the Bible. Such assertions are the balderdash of defeated Ma- 
terialists and Universalists. When Scripture contradicts their 
doctrines, they try to traduce Scripture. Their statements are 
without foundation in fact, and proof defies them. We will 
meet the issue squarely. Let us see. Luke was a Greek physi- 
cian, an educated man, the only Gentile writer in the Bible. 
His mind was free from any possible Jewish traditional preju- 
dices. He was writing to his friend, Theophilus, a Greek stu- 
dent of Christianity, and a man of sufficient importance to be 
addressed as "Most Excellent." In his preface, Luke tells 
Theophilus that he had a perfect understanding of all these 
things from the very first from those who were eye-witnesses. 



The Wheat and Tares 61 

And he sets them down in order "That thou [Theophilus] 
mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast 
been instructed." 

Here is a Greek, to whom Paul refers as the beloved phy- 
sician, a man of character, writing to another Greek, a friend, 
for the purpose of vouching for the things in which that friend 
has already been instructed concerning the life of Christ. Now, 
can any one advance a sensible reason why Luke would incor- 
porate an invention of his own mind under such circumstances ? 
Only a very base man could make such pretentions to truth and 
then practice such a deception on a friend. It is not probable 
that a man could be so base and write such a history as did 
Luke. 

Let us go further. If any disciple, other than Judas, had 
reason to believe in a personal devil, it was Peter. Here is 
what he said (II. Peter 2:4): "God spared not the angels that 
sinned, but cast them down to hell." How did Peter know this? 
Christ told him. Christ told Peter a great deal about Satan. 
Still we have another witness; Jude, a brother of James and 
a near relative of the Lord, said : "The angels which kept not 
their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved 
in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the 
great day." Here is evidence at the mouth of three witnesses 
which under Jewish law was sufficient in court. There is evi- 
dence enough that the disciples all believed in a personal devil 
and an organized infernal kingdom, and that Jesus did teach 
that Satan was once an angel of power in the heavenly king- 
dom. 

satan's ambition 

How could such a discordant condition occur in heaven? 
Taking the facts as stated, it is apparent that, like man, the 
angels were created free moral agents. Their loyalty to God 
depended on their own free will. Otherwise, they would be as 
slaves and their loyalty would be without virtue. There are 



62 Twentieth Century Christianity 

angels with authority. This is shown by the reference to Mi- 
chael, the archangel or chief angel (Jude 9). Peter also refers 
to angels which are greater in power and might (II. Peter 
2: 11). Summing up, we find that Satan was a spirit of power 
and might. He had an influence over one-third the hosts of 
heaven. He became proud and ambitious. He became a dis- 
turber. He began to falsely accuse the loyal angels, as the 
voice said in John's vision, "The accuser of our brethren is 
cast down, which accused them before our God day and night." 
From being a seditionary, he grew to be an open rebel. Only 
one result could be possible ; he was expelled, and with him all 
the disloyal spirits who were not satisfied with their first estate. 
Thus heaven was purged. Can we imagine now that God is 
going to admit into his kingdom in the future any souls who 
have not proved their loyalty to him ? By no manner of means. 
God established the moral law of obedience which is just as 
immutable as the law of continuity in the universe. All talk 
of God's being so merciful that he is just going to pull men into 
the kingdom of heaven with grappling-hooks, is clearly out of 
reason. Heaven now only contains harmony, and no discord- 
ant spirit will ever be allowed to disturb that harmony. 

SATAN ON THE JOB 

Of Satan's purpose after the expulsion, we quote Milton's 
thought : 

"Of this be sure, 
To do aught good never will be our task, 
But ever to do ill our sole delight, 
As being contrary to his high will 
Whom we resist. If then his providence 
Out of our evil seek to bring forth good, 
Our labor must be to pervert that end, 
And out of good still find means of evil ; 
Which oft-times may succeed, so as perhaps 
Shall grieve him, if I fail not, and disturb 
His inmost counsels from their destined aim." 



The Wheat and Tares 63 

Though but the result of Milton's reasoning, these wards 
contain much of real philosophy. Peter, writing to the elders 
of the church said, "Be sober, be vigilant, because your adver- 
sary, the devil, as a roaring lion walketh about, seeking whom 
he may devour." Here the devil is described as a hungry lion 
seeking his prey. He is truly the adversary of God and man. 
The devil is no joke. He is not the horned, cloven-hoofed, 
long-tailed monster often pictured. He does not protrude him- 
self behind any hideous mask. Quite the reverse. "The cul- 
ture, too, that shapes the world, at last hath e'en the devil in 
its sphere embraced; the northern phantom from the scene 
hath passed. Tail, talons, horns, are nowhere to be traced." 
The devil is cunning enough. His traps display the guilder's 
art. They are entered through prismatic fronts. They are 
draped in the finest silks and richest velvets. A smile is his 
welcome and pleasure is his bait. "In the depths of sensual 
pleasure drowned, let us our fiery passions still. Enwrapped 
in magic's veil profound, let wondrous charms our senses thrill. 
Plunge we in time's tempestuous flow, stem we the rolling surge 
of chance; then may alternate weal and woe, success and fail- 
ure, as they can, mingle and shift in changeful dance: excite- 
ment is the sphere of man." 

But all the while, he stirs his caldron and looks on with a 
sinister twinkle in his eye, and thinks, "What fools these mor- 
tals be," for he knows he is brewing a bitter potion. At the 
bottom of the pot are dregs, bitter dregs. The pleasure is all 
vapor and bubbles, but the dregs are a mass of sorrow and dis- 
tress and bitter remorse. 

But there is the church man. A sermon for him. Remem- 
ber, God is love. God is merciful. God will not punish. Thou 
shalt not surely die. God made a man of you ; then be a man — 
a real, live man — a strong man — a red-blooded man. Do not 
be a coward and shift your soul's responsibility onto a Savior. 
Do not believe all you hear at church. Do not believe in the 
devil. He is a myth. Learn to separate the truth from legends 



64 Twentieth Century Christianity 

and myths. By all means, avoid religious sprees; they are 
hard on the nerves. Any other spree but a religious spree. 

The devil picks smart men to preach his sermons. But they 
are somewhat like yEsop's fable of the ass which masked in a 
lion's skin to frighten the other animals of the forest. He suc- 
ceeded until he tried to roar. Then his bray gave him away. 

Christ knew these false preachers would arise and he gave 
ample warning ; for he said : "They will show signs and won- 
ders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. But take 
heed : behold, I have foretold you all things." 



"They that deny a God destroy man's nobility ; 
for certainly man is of kin to the beasts by his 
body ; and if he be not of kin to God by his spirit 
he is a base and ignoble creature." 

— Lord Francis Bacon. 



Article Five 
WHAT IS MAN'S RELATION TO GOD? 

WAY back, many thousands of years ago, man had a 
birthday. It is not important for the purpose of our 
argument that the approximation of the time by man 
is correct. God had created a great material universe. He estab- 
lished order out of chaos. He separated the land from the sea. He 
clarified the atmosphere so that light and darkness were clearly 
defined. He caused vegetation to spring forth. He provided 
seasons for budding, seed time, and harvest. God then created 
moving life — swimming, creeping, walking, and flying life — 
always creating on the ascending scale, from lower to higher, 
from simple to complex. At last God looked upon a world of 
beauty, a vast botanical and zoological garden. God looked at 
it and pronounced it good. There was absolutely nothing 
wrong with what had been accomplished. But the climax had 
not been reached. There was no intelligent being in all that 
creation. Then God said, Let us make man in our own image, 
after our own likeness, and let him be monarch of all the earth. 
So, of the material earth, God formed a body with all the nec- 
essary machinery for keeping itself in repair and for perform- 
ing the many functions expected of it. When the body was 
ready, God breathed into it of his own essence, and the creature 
became a living soul, an intelligence, an entity ; and man opened 



66 Twentieth Century Christianity 

his eyes and saw a beautiful world ready for him — a world that 
needed him and which would gladly supply his wants — a world 
in which he could be happy. God looked upon man, eminently 
the greatest of all his creatures. He was satisfied, and stopped 
and rested from all his labors. 

CONSTITUTION OF MAN 

Man was a compound creation : first, a body — the material 
element — the temple of the living God — the means by which the 
entity might express itself, and by which it might get into corre- 
spondence with its environments, and through which it might 
exercise its will — a body possessing physical desires; second, 
an intelligence— an understanding, a mind, for receiving and 
retaining impressions, and for conceiving and imparting 
thought — possessing mental desires ; third, a soul — an emotional 
force — a will, a moral and immortal spirit, capable of expres- 
sion, and possessing spiritual desires. Thus man was consti- 
uted a mind and soul embodied in a material existence — three 
forces, each possessing desires peculiar to itself, and either one 
of which, under favorable conditions, might dominate the whole 
composite being, man. 

It is self-evident that, when God breathed into man a soul, 
man partook of the likeness of God in purity, holiness, freedom 
of will, intelligence, emotion, sensitiveness ; he possessed a cre- 
ative faculty and an executive ability. In fine, man partook of 
the very essence of God. It is important to note here the ele- 
ment of free-will. This power constituted man a free agent. 
The soul partook of God's nature, but it was thrown off from 
God and became an independent entity. It was a process sim- 
ilar to the generating process of certain bacteria which multiply 
by subdivision: the bacterium grows to normal size, then 
divides itself into two independent individuals, each to go its 
own way, to grow and subdivide, etc. So with man; he was 
independent to choose moral ends and determine his purposes 
in life. As man was gifted with intelligence and reason as well 



The Wheat and Tares 67 

as will, it is just that he assume the responsibility of his choice, 
whether moral, or physical. 

THE SOUL'S AFFINITY 

Now, it is a fact that every nature is inclined to seek its 
affinity. It is most in harmony with its own kind; hence, we 
conclude that, of its very nature, the soul of man would seek 
its original source. It would be entirely in harmony with its 
source ; therefore, we say, man, in his original condition, would 
naturally and spontaneously seek God, to serve and worship 
him. In this condition man could not invent evil. Unless that 
nature should be interrupted by some extraneous opposing force, 
man would know nothing else than to will to love God and to be 
as God — pure and holy — and to worship God as the Creator. 
That is exactly how we find man in his first condition, accord- 
ing to Scripture. God visited him and talked with him; man 
rejoiced in the presence of God. They were in harmony with 
each other. 

But thus far man's loyalty to God was entirely automatic. 
Man's will had but one direction ; it had no contrary choice ; in 
fact, it had no moral possibility of exercising itself ; no moral 
law had been established, hence no moral law could be violated. 
God had no pleasure in automatic loyalty. Man had a free will, 
he must have the privilege of a contrary choice. A whole code 
of laws was not necessary for this test. Only one was promul- 
gated. It was a broad law ; it was a fundamental moral law ; 
it was the law of moral laws — the law of obedience. "Of every 
tree of the garden thou mayest eat freely : but of the tree of the 
knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it : for in the 
day that thou eatest of it, thou shalt surely die." There could 
be no mistake, no plea of ignorance. The tree was pointed out. 
It stood in the midst of the garden. The law was plainly stated 
and it had its penalty attached. 

We do not understand that there was any real intellectual 
virtue in the fruit of this tree. It was the law that made it the 



68 Twentieth Century Christianity 

tree of the knowledge of good and evil. To obey the law was 
good ; to disobey was evil. The act of disobedience would bring 
with it the consciousness of having done evil. Once that con- 
sciousness was awakened, man would forever know of the 
existence of the two opposing principles between which he must 
be constantly choosing. 

WHAT HAPPENED 

Before proceeding, we pause to ask our materialists and 
philosophers to consider the foregoing argument on the original 
holy condition of man, and then explain his subsequent condi- 
tion and present natural condition without accounting for an 
evil spirit. It is very tiresome to constantly hear the cry of 
myth and legend, without any proof. Quit your balderdash 
and get down to sensible argument. We now proceed. 

The opposing force entered the field to interrupt the har- 
mony between man and his God. The adversary approaches 
the woman with the insidious question, "Indeed, hath God said, 
ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" implying, God has 
really circumscribed your liberty. The woman defends the lib- 
erality of God: "We may eat of every tree but just the one in 
the midst of the garden. That we may not touch lest we die." 
"Oh," said the devil, "Do not believe that. You are the most 
wonderful of all God's creatures ; do not believe he will let you 
die. God said that just to scare you a little. He knows that 
when you eat of that fruit you will become as gods, knowing 
good and evil. Think of it ! you will become wise as gods !" 
The woman pondered for a moment, a fatal moment. She 
listened. She argued : "The fruit is good to eat. It looks 
mighty nice. It certainly is desirable to be wise. I believe 
I have a scientific turn of mind, sort of Ph.D., you know." So 
she took a bite. She persuaded her husband, and he took a 
bite. Then they discovered the fact that they had violated the 
law of obedience. Harmony between God and man was inter- 



The Wheat and Tares 69 

ritpted. The correspondence of the soul with its source was 
severed. 

Notice the nature of the temptation : The fruit was good to 
eat and pleasant to look at; the curiosity of the body was 
aroused; the desire of the body asserted itself. The fruit was 
desirable to make one wise ; the curiosity of the mind was 
aroused ; the desire of the mind asserted itself. The conscience 
— the soul — the God nature — protested ; but the other two forces 
dominated, and sin triumphed. Now, then: God goes forth 
in the garden to meet man as aforetime. Man no longer re- 
joices in the presence of God ; he hides from God. In that very 
act he passes judgment on himself. Oh, you men, who say you 
do not want to worship a God who will judge you, note this : 
you will save God the trouble ; you will pass judgment on your- 
selves ; you will call on the rocks to hide you from his presence. 
When you sin against your fellow man, you cannot look him in 
the eye. How do you expect, then, to face God, when you have 
sinned against him all your mortal life? 

It is not necessary at this time to go into the details of the 
curse which followed. Whether he wants to believe it or not, 
every man is to-day face to face with the conditions set forth 
in that ban of Genesis. Every detail is just as true to-day as it 
was in the day that God pronounced the curse. One important 
fact must be noticed : excuses were ineffective. There was no 
excuse. Man voluntarily chose to correspond with the devil 
rather than with God. He preferred to believe the devil rather 
than to believe God. He struck a minor chord. He placed 
himself at discord with God. He is no longer the monarch. He 
now has to contend against all the forces of creation. Every- 
thing in nature is on the defensive. Everywhere man turns he 
sees death and decay staring him in the face. This is the second 
state of man. Say, Mr. Philosopher, is it a myth? Is it a 
legend? We do not care what you believe with your narrow, 
finite mind. You may believe that white is black, but prove it. 

If the story of Eden be not true, if the story of Adam's fall 



70 Twentieth Century Christianity 

is a myth, if the theory of original sin and the resultant deprav- 
ity of man is merely of legendary origin, how do you account 
for the fact of natural immorality, and the general struggle for 
existence found throughout nature? 

Under original conditions, all nature was good and was so 
pronounced by God. That meant that it was perfect according 
to his high standard of perfection. All was harmony. If the 
world is not now under a curse, how do you account for the 
fact that nature is at war with itself? Why do weeds just nat- 
urally grow, while wheat must be cultivated by the sweat of 
the brow? Why is man's nature instinctively evil? Why is 
man constantly at war with himself to overcome his natural 
evil tendencies ? Why is it so easy to do evil and so difficult to 
do good? Why is it true that, as Paul said, "I find then a law, 
that, when I would do good, evil is present with me"? Man 
was not originally so created. God could not so have created 
man, for God is perfect and all his works are perfect. How, 
then, has man's nature become so perverted? Men like Dr. 
Savage may scoff at Genesis, but let them give a satisfactory 
answer to these questions. 

It is not enough to say that human sin is the imitation of 
Adam's sin ; for it is not probable that every human being 
would be constantly having to fight off sin if it were merely a 
matter of imitation. By that theory, sin would be altogether 
an extraneous agent which must be adopted by man. If that 
were the case, it would be easy enough not to adopt it, and very 
few, if any, normal or rational men would desire to imitate 
Adam's sin; and man would not find himself in the position of 
constantly having to fight against evil, and Paul would not have 
had to say, "It is no more I that sin but sin that dwelleth in me." 
To imitate a thing, we must first see the pattern ; but in respect 
to sin, we need no pattern, for man spontaneously commits sin. 
Cain needed no pattern to enable him to commit murder. The 
impulse originated within himself. 



The Wheat and Tares 71 

There must be another answer. Human nature must possess 
the germ of sin within itself. That is positively the only way we 
can account for the prevalence of sin in man's disposition. Our 
sin is the product of Adam's sin, inherited from generation to 
generation down through all the ages. It is not Adam's sin for 
which we are held accountable, but our own sin; and we are 
held accountable because we are free moral agents with the 
power of choice between the will to obey God and the will to dis- 
obey God. No impossible condition has been forced upon us. We 
have adequate powers, knowledge, and motives to exert our 
wills to obedience to God. The created constitution of the soul 
is not such that there are moral tastes or instincts upon which 
the will cannot act. We are absolutely free agents and funda- 
mentally accountable. 

Lyman Beecher says : "God commands the sinner to obey 
the Gospel ; and the sinner, thoroughly furnished with all the 
powers and means of moral agency, refuses to obey. Rewards, 
threatenings, entreaties, expostulations, judgments, and mercies 
exhaust their powers upon him, and he refuses ; he will not 
come to Christ, and always resists the Holy Ghost. . . . 
Who puts forth more giant free agency than the sinner, full set 
to do evil ? . . . The sinner can be accountable, then, and 
he is accountable, for his impenitence and unbelief, though he 
will not turn, and God may never turn him, because he is able, 
and only unwilling, to do what God commands, and which being 
done, would save his soul." 

This obstinacy is another proof of the innate moral deprav- 
ity of man. It is another evidence of his natural discordant 
relation to God under the curse of sin. We find, then, that 
man's relation to God was originally harmonious, but now dis- 
cordant ; and that harmony can only be restored by obedience to 
the process which God himself has ordained. 



Article Six 
WHAT IS SPIRITUAL DEATH? 

WE now come to a very important question in our dis- 
cussion : What is Spiritual death? After a careful 
analysis, we find these four propositions : 

First, A living body and a living soul. 

Second, A living body and a dead soul. 

Third, A dead body and a dead soul. 

Fourth, A dead body and a living soul. 

The first is a fullness of life, Natural and Spiritual, present 
and future. The second is Natural life but Spiritual death, a 
present life but a future death. The third is Natural death and 
Spiritual death, a present and a future death. The fourth is 
Natural death but Spiritual life, present death but future life. 

The .first proposition embraces man as God first created him 
— man's first estate. The second embraces man after the temp- 
tation. The third is the final condition under the curse. The 
fourth is the final condition under redemption. 

So far as the Natural life is concerned, it faces death from 
the moment the babe draws its first breath. Through all the 
periods of its growth and development, every moment is one 
moment nearer death. This fact is known to all, and with this 
we have but a temporal concern. But for the soul we have a 
much deeper concern because of its immortality. It is im- 
mortal in life or immortal in death. This may seem a paradox ; 
but let us see: 

When God said, "In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou 
shalt surely die," what did he mean? First, we find that the 
death penalty was to be executed at once — "In the day" — the 
same day — in fact, the same moment. Then God did not refer 
to the body. He said, "Thou shalt die"; that is, thyself — that 



The Wheat and Tares 73 

which thou art — a living soul — shall die. It is the same thought 
as expressed by God to Ezekiel, "The soul that sinneth, it shall 
die." It is true that after the temptation God said, "Dust thou 
art, to dust shalt thou return." This did refer to the body. But 
this penalty was pronounced prophetically — in futurity, and ap- 
parently was a penalty distinct from the first which was to be 
executed at once. The physical man was not to die immediately. 
Paul said to Timothy, "She that liveth in pleasure is dead while 
she liveth" — our second proposition. Christ said, "Fear not 
them which kill the body but are not able to kill the soul : but 
rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in 
hell" — our third and fourth in inverse order. 

But how can the soul die, since it is a part of the essence of 
God and therefore partakes of immortality? What is spiritual 
death? 

DEATH RELATIVE TO LIFE 

Dr. Henry Drummond says, "What Death is, depends upon 
what Life is." Herbert Spencer defines life as "the continuous 
adjustment of internal relations to external relations." We 
shall now follow Dr. Drummond's argument in substance, 
though not verbatim. 

"A human being, for instance, is in direct contact with the 
earth and air, with all surrounding things, with the warmth of 
the sun, with the music of the birds, with the countless influ- 
ences and activities of nature and of his fellow men." Thus he 
is said to be "in correspondence with his environment." He 
may be influencing them, but he is being influenced by them. 
"In virtue of this correspondence, he is entitled to be called 
alive." Now, if the environment change, man must be able to 
adjust himself to the change, otherwise he cannot keep up the 
correspondence. For example, when food becomes scarce in 
one locality, man may adjust himself to these "external rela- 
tions" by moving to another locality where food is plentiful, or 
by importing food from another locality. But if he fails to 



74 Twentieth Century Christianity 

adjust himself to altered circumstances, then his "internal rela- 
tions" are no longer adjusted to his "external relations" and life 
must cease. This Death or want of correspondence may be 
either partial or complete. Suppose a man is deaf ; then he is 
out of correspondence with a large part of his environment, 
namely, its sounds. With regard to that "external relation," 
he is dead. Suppose again he is also blind; then he is thrown 
out of correspondence with another large part of his environ- 
ment; the beauties of nature — color and form — are shut out. 
He is still further dead. Now suppose that his brain is affected 
so that it ceases to acquaint him with what is transpiring about 
him ; the outside world is still there, but to him it is not. He is 
still further dead. As he becomes more and more dead, he be- 
comes less and less alive. Finally, suppose that the lungs refuse 
to correspond with the air ; "there is now no correspondence 
whatever with environment — the whole thing is Dead." "Death 
is the result, the want of correspondence." 

Natural environment is the entire surrounding of the Nat- 
ural man, the entire external world in which he lives and moves 
and has his being. He may not be in immediate correspondence 
with all of his environment. Whether he corresponds with it 
or not, it is there. Then we have both a conscious and an 
unconscious environment. In daytime he may not see the moon 
and stars; he may not be aware of the influence of the polar 
regions; but they exist just the same. There are organisms 
which have only the most limited correspondence with their 
surroundings. A tree corresponds with the soil at its roots, 
with the sunlight and air in contact with its leaves ; but it is 
shut off from a whole world to which higher forms of life have 
additional access. To a large part of surrounding nature it may 
be said to be dead. As to consciousness it is not alive at all. 
The bird corresponds with a wider environment. The stream 
and the insect are real to it. The distance beyond the hill is 
familiar to it. It listens to the love-song of its mate. The bird 
is more living than the tree ; but there is much to which the bird 



The Wheat and Tares 75 

is dead. Man has the widest correspondence of all creatures. 
Hundreds of things which the bird never saw in stream, in 
insect, and in tree, appeal to him. Every single sense in man 
has something with which to correspond. Man is a mass of 
correspondences. As we rise in the scale of life, the sway of 
death is gradually weakened. But is man in correspondence 
with his whole environment? If there is one outermost circle 
with which he fails to correspond, then to that circle he is dead. 
"If he fails to reach, to know, to be influenced by one circle or 
segment of a circle, then with regard to that segment or circle 
he is dead." Is man, then, in correspondence with his whole 
environment? He is not. 

THE SPIRITUAL ZONE 

Men generally are not in living contact with that part of 
their environment called the Spiritual world. This is the outer- 
most circle. We separate the animal from the vegetable ; but 
they are the same world, they are different parts of the same 
environment. The Natural and the Spiritual are likewise one. 
The inner circles are called the Natural, the outer, the Spiritual. 
They are outer because they are beyond us, or beyond a part 
of us. What we have little or no correspondence with, we call 
Spiritual. But when the appropriate corresponding organism 
appears by which we can communicate with the outer circles, 
then the distinction disappears. The Spiritual becomes the outer 
circle of the Natural. Suppose we call the outer circle God. 
Then suppose we substitute for "correspondence" the term 
"communion." Those who are in communion with God live; 
those who are not, are dead. We can now investigate the 
essential nature of Spiritual Death. 

"We find it to consist of a want of communion with God. 
The un-Spiritual man is he who lives in the circumscribed envi- 
ronment of this present world." "She that liveth in pleasure 
is dead while she liveth." "To be carnally minded is Death." 
"To be carnally minded is to be limited in one's correspondence 



76 Twentieth Century Christianity 

to the Natural man. The mind of the flesh, by its nature, lim- 
ited capacity, and time-ward tendency, is Death." No matter 
how noble the earthly mind may be, how cultured, virtuous, and 
pure, if it know not God, it is Dead. The plant is not a monster 
because it is dead to the voice of the bird. Neither is the man 
a monster who is dead to the voice of God. He is simply Dead. 
The proof is in the utterance of the Dead themselves. They 
proclaim themselves Spiritually Dead. They correspond only 
with a Natural and a Material world. "The natural man receiv- 
eth not the things of the Spirit of God : for they are foolishness 
unto him : neither can he know them, because they are spiritu- 
ally discerned." 

Those philosophers who are trying to build an anti-Christian 
system on this doctrine, seeking to sap the foundation of Spirit- 
ual religion, unconsciously testify to their own dead condition. 
They admit that they are out of correspondence with the Spirit- 
ual circle. When the infidel says he is blind and deaf and dumb 
and dead to the Spiritual world of Christ, we must believe him. 
Christ says he is. Paul says he is. Science says he is. He 
builds his altar to the Unknown God. "He is one correspond- 
ence short." "Science has paved the way for one of the most 
revolutionary doctrines of Christianity," namely, man cannot 
discern the things of the Spiritual world with a Natural mind. 
Naturally he is dead to the Spiritual world. 

GOD OF NATURE 

The Scientist has a God, a most wonderful and glorious God. 
He sees in nature a Power that is above him. He is absorbed 
in the contemplation of this Power. He seeks happiness in a 
knowledge of him. He does not deny God. What he lacks is 
correspondence. He realizes that there is an environment 
beyond him. It is this want of correspondence that makes his 
God the Unknown God. It is this that makes him dead. There 
is a Natural religion. Not to know that is to know God only in 
part. For God is not confined to the outermost circle ; he moves 



The Wheat and Tares 77 

in the whole environment. The Christian must know the God 
of nature as the Psalmist did when he sang, "The heavens de- 
clare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handi- 
work" ; otherwise, he only partially lives. But he who knows 
God only in Nature lives not. To correspond with the God of 
Science assuredly is not to live. "This is life eternal, to 
know Thee, the true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast 
sent." Space, stars, or rocks are not God. "God is a Spirit: 
and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in 
truth." Without the light of Revelation, the light of Nature is 
very dim. Pagan Scientists who only had the light of Nature 
groped in vain to find the Truth. "Nature and Morality provide 
all for virtue — except the life to live it." The absence of true 
light means moral Death. "The carnal mind is enmity against 
God." The mind w T hich is turned away from God, which will 
not correspond with God, means Spiritual Death. Unbelief in 
God is sin. Unbelief in God embraces unbelief in God's power 
to execute his will as he will. To reject Christ and the Gospel 
of the New Testament is failure to correspond with the greatest 
manifestation of God's love. It is Spiritual Death. 



Article Seven 
WHENCE COMES SPIRITUAL LIFE? 

WHAT is Spiritual Life? We answer from our former 
discussion on Spiritual Death, and say : Spiritual Life 
consists in being in continuous correspondence with 
the outermost circle of the Natural world, namely, the Spiritual 
world. But since man is not naturally in correspondence with 
the Spiritual circle, the question arises, How can man get into 
correspondence with this outer environment? How can man 
become alive to the Spiritual world? How can man become 
Spiritually alive? How can man receive Spiritual Life? Christ 
said, "It is the Spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth noth- 
ing." Again he said, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh ; 
and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Still again, "I 
am come that they might have life, and that they might have it 
more abundantly." 

For centuries, scientists have discussed the origin of life. 
There was one school that preached the doctrine of Spontaneous 
Generation. According to that doctrine antecedent life is not 
necessary to produce life; that life can spring into being of it- 
self. Experimental proof was produced. Glass jars were par- 
tially filled with infusions of organic matter. They were boiled 
to kill all germs of life, then hermetically sealed to exclude the 
outer air. After all this apparent care to secure sterility, life 
did appear inside the jars. It was argued then that life was 
spontaneously generated. But there were two errors in the 
experiment. One error was, the experiment was not performed 
in an atmosphere of absolute sterility. The second was, the 
temperatures were not sufficiently high to annihilate all life. 
It was found that certain germs were all but fire-proof. When 
the experiment was repeated with these errors corrected, abso- 



The Wheat and Tares 79 

lutely no life appeared. Thus the doctrine of Spontaneous Gen- 
eration was killed and it became a recognized fact that "life 
can only come from the touch of life." No life can appear 
independent of antecedent life. 

We have to-day philosophic religionists who teach that 
Spiritual Life can spontaneously generate itself. It is simply 
this, that a man may gradually become better and better until, 
in process of time, he reaches "that quality of religious nature 
known as Spiritual Life." They claim that this life is not some- 
thing received from without, but that it is the normal develop- 
ment of the Natural man. Christianity opposes this doctrine. 
It teaches that Spiritual Life is the gift of the living Spirit, that 
it is not the mere development of the Natural man. "It is the 
Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing." "That 
which is born of the flesh is flesh; that which is born of the 
Spirit is spirit." 

NATURAL AND SPIRITUAL KINGDOM 

We have two great kingdoms of nature, inorganic and 
organic. The inorganic cannot of itself pass into the organic 
kingdom. "No change of substance, no modification of envi- 
ronment, no chemistry, no electricity, nor any form of energy, 
nor any evolution, can endow any atom of the mineral world 
with the attribute of life. Only by the bending down into this 
dead world of some living form can these dead atoms be gifted 
with the properties of vitality. Without this preliminary con- 
tact with life, they remain fixed in the inorganic sphere forever." 
There is a great gulf fixed between the living and the dead. 
So between the Natural and Spiritual worlds is a great gulf 
fixed. The passage is "hermetically sealed on the Natural side." 
"The door from the inorganic to the organic is shut ; no mineral 
can open it; so the door from the Natural to the Spiritual is 
shut, and no man can open it." "No organic change, no modi- 
fication of environment, no mental energy, no moral effort, no 
evolution of character, no process of civilization, can endow any 



80 Twentieth Century Christianity 

single human soul with the attribute of Spiritual Life." The 
Spiritual world is guarded from the world beneath by a law of 
biogenesis : "Except a man be born again — except a man be 
born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom 
of God." 

In a profound discourse, one of our anti-Christian philoso- 
phers recently stated that he believes it possible for some one 
to acrobat himself into the presence of God, that another might 
dance herself into the kingdom, or that we may baseball our- 
selves into the kingdom. Such talk is certainly pitiable. What 
an imposition it is on intelligence ! What a fantastic travesty ! 
But such wild ideas are probably the natural result of getting 
away from God's truths. 

"Except a man be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom 
of God." The admission of the Natural man into the Spiritual 
kingdom is a scientific impossibility, just as much as it is a 
scientific impossibility for the mineral to enter the kingdom 
above without the touch of life from the vegetable. "The 
plant stretches down to the dead world beneath it, touches its 
minerals and gases with its mystery of life, and brings them 
up ennobled and transformed to the living sphere. Just so the 
Spirit of God reaches down and touches with its mystery of 
life the dead souls of men, bears them across the gulf between 
Natural and Spiritual, and endows them with its own high qual- 
ities, and develops within them these new and secret faculties 
by which those who are born again are said to see the kingdom 
of God." "I am come that they might have life and that they 
might have it more abundantly." "He that hath the Son hath 
life, and he that hath not the Son hath not life." "There is no 
spontaneous generation in religion any more than in nature. 
Christ is the source of life in the Spiritual world." We may 
hold in one hand a common pebble, and in the other a perfectly 
cut diamond. The one has small value. It has no beauty. 
It is only a common pebble and we cast it aside. The other, 
when held to the light, sparkles and radiates all the colors of 



The Wheat and Tares 81 

the rainbow. It is beautiful. It is valuable. We prize it. 
But both the diamond and the pebble belong to the same world. 
Both are inorganic ; both are minerals. Neither can ever enter 
the higher world unless it be possible for vegetable life to 
reach down and transform them. So with Natural man. He 
may be so low as to be repulsive to society, or he may be very 
moral and refined and of value to society. But in either case 
he belongs to the Natural world and he cannot enter the Spirit- 
ual world until touched by the life of the Spiritual world. "The 
Natural world is to the Spiritual as the inorganic is to the 
organic." 

MYSTERY OF LIFE 

The second birth is no more mysterious to the Spiritual man 
than the first is to the Natural man. But the philosopher with 
merely a Natural mind cannot discuss Spiritual Life any more 
than a mineral can tell of animal life. The mineral knows 
"nothing of other than chemical and physical laws" ; therefore, 
its criticism of the principles of life would be worthless. Like- 
wise, the un-Spiritual philosopher is incapable of discussing the 
fact of Spiritual Life because he knows nothing of other than 
Natural laws. "The natural man receiveth not the things of the 
Spirit of God : neither can he know them." The Spiritual Life 
is so real to the Spiritual man that he is inclined to think it is 
only a pretense when the un-Spiritual man asserts his ignorance 
of the Spiritual world. But such is not the case. It is a 
scientific fact that he does not know it. It is beyond his 
Natural mind. It is foolishness unto him, neither can he know 
it. Christ said so. Science says so. 

"The origin of life is the fundamental question alike of 
Science and Christianity." There is no Christianity without a 
Living Spirit. "Except a man be born of water and of the 
Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." He must be born 
again. It was hard for Nicodemus to understand this propo- 
sition. Some people to-day find it equally hard. They ask, 



82 Twentieth Century Christianity 

"Why cannot a man grow better and better of his own accord 
until he evolve himself into the kingdom of God?" (Few have 
been so absurd as to ask, Why may he not "tango" himself 
into the kingdom?) In reply, we ask why a stone may not 
grow more and more living till it enters the Organic world ? 

There is a difference between the Spiritual and the un- Spirit- 
ual man, between the Christian and the non-Christian, not in 
physical appearance, not in intellectual attainments, perhaps 
not much in moral manifestations; but the former has some- 
thing that does not exist in the latter. "What is the difference 
between the crystal and the plant? They have much in com- 
mon : both are made of the same atoms ; both display the same 
properties of matter; both are subject to the Physical Laws; 
both may be beautiful. But besides possessing all that the 
crystal has, the plant possesses something more, a mysterious 
something called Life. This Life is not something that existed 
in the crystal only in a less developed form. There is nothing 
at all like it in the crystal. There is not a trace nor symptom 
of it in the crystal." It is something added to the plant over 
and above all the properties common to both. So with the man 
who has Spiritual Life. He has something, "a distinct kind of 
Life added to all the other phases of Life which he manifests." 
"The Natural man belongs essentially to this present order of 
things. He is endowed with simply a high order of the Natural 
animal life." "But he that hath the Son hath life" — a new and 
distinct and supernatural endowment. No matter how much 
this distinction may be ridiculed by Mr. Worldly Wiseman, 
it is nevertheless a Scientific distinction. The gift of Spiritual 
Life distinguishes Christianity from all other religions. "Chris- 
tianity infuses into the Spiritual man a new Life, of a quality 
unlike anything else in nature" — it is Christ. 



Article Eight 
IS CHRIST CONCEALED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT? 

THERE are those who say they believe in the Bible ex- 
cepting its mysteries and its miracles, its supernatural 
and superhuman events. In other words, take God and 
Christ out of the Bible and the poor souls will believe and ac- 
cept what is left. They are like vultures feeding on a dead 
carcass ; for, robbed of God and Christ, the Bible is as lifeless 
as the sphinx of Egypt. It is not remarkable, therefore, that 
a religion depending on such dry bones for nourishment is with- 
out life itself. It offers nothing for a hungry soul. The soul 
cries for bread and is offered a stone. 

One great evidence of life in the Bible is its record of 
prophecy fulfilled. The supreme evidence of prophecy fulfilled 
is Christ. It is said that in the Old Testament Christ is con- 
cealed, while in the New Testament he is revealed. Paul said 
to the Romans, "The invisible things of God from the creation 
of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things 
that are made." In other words, Spiritual things are revealed 
by material things. But material things only reveal Spiritual 
things to the Spiritual mind. The Natural mind knoweth not 
the things that be of God, neither can it understand them. We 
must then approach our subject with a Spiritual mind. 

We make this positive statement: The New Testament is 
a fulfillment of the Old Testament. The two dispensations are 
separated only by a thin partition through which is a door, and 
that door is Christ. Over the outer side is written "Prophecy," 
and over the inner side is written "Fulfillment." Christ said, 
"I came not to destroy but to fulfill." If Christ is prophesied 
and described in the Old Testament, then the Christ revealed in 
the New Testament must conform to prophecy in life, charac- 
ter, teachings, and works. 



84 Twentieth Century Christianity 

Christ taught that the Old Testament is full of prophecies 
concerning himself. For example, Luke 24 : 27 : "And begin- 
ning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in 
all the scriptures the things concerning himself." And verse 
44 : "All things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law 
of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms concerning 
me." Let us examine a few of these prophecies. 

The first promise of a Redeemer is found in Genesis, when 
God said the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's 
head. This meant the ultimate defeat of Satan. Paul uses this 
thought in his letter to the Romans : "And the God of peace 
shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly" (Rom. 16:20). 
The lineage of Christ was established when God said to Abra- 
ham, "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." 
This promise was repeated to Isaac (Gen. 26 : 4). It was again 
repeated to Jacob (Gen. 28: 14). The lineage was unbroken 
through twelve generations to David, to whom God made this 
remarkable promise: "Thine house and thy kingdom shall be 
established forever before thee ; thy throne shall be established 
forever." "Forever" means that there never should be an end 
to the dynasty of David. As we are taught that material things 
shall pass away, this promise could only be fulfilled in One who 
could rule forever. Therefore the dynasty of David — the king- 
dom of David — must pass from the Natural to the Spiritual 
state and continue forevermore. The seed of David must then 
produce a descendant whose kingship would pass in power to 
the Spiritual world and yet maintain its authority over those 
still in the Natural world so long as the Natural world exists. 
This promise was fulfilled in Christ. Luke 1 : 32-33 : "The Lord 
God shall give unto him [Christ] the throne of his father David : 
and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever : and of his 
kingdom there shall be no end." 

A FEW TYPES 

The Old Testament is full of types of Christ. This fact is 
confirmed many times in the New Testament. We mention but 



The Wheat and Tares 85 

a few. When God said to Abraham, "Take thine only son, 
Isaac, whom thou lovest, and offer him for a burnt offering," 
God was portraying in this great test of Abraham's faith his 
own great love for the world when he should offer his only Son 
as a sacrifice for sin. 

Joseph sold into Egypt was a type. He said to his brethren, 
after he had saved them from starvation, "Ye thought evil 
against me : but God meant it unto good, to bring it to pass, as 
it is this day, to save much people alive." So Christ, sold by one 
of his disciples, became the Redeemer to save "much people" 
from Spiritual Death. 

Moses, who lead the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt to 
the promised land, was a type of Christ leading the nations of 
the world out of the bondage of sin to a new Canaan — to a 
new Jerusalem. They said to Moses, "Who made thee a ruler 
and a judge over us ?" The Jews said the same thing to Christ. 
Our learned philosophers are saying the same thing to Christ 
to-day. 

The Ark and Mercy Seat typified Christ. The law was to 
be put inside the Ark and the Mercy Seat was to be placed 
above the Ark. This signified that mercy was to reign over law. 
God said, "And there will I meet with thee, and I will com- 
mune with thee from above the Mercy Seat." But Mercy did 
not supersede the Law. We may say that Mercy supersedes the 
penalty of the Law. But not automatically ; certain conditions 
must be met. Paul defines the offices of mercy and law : "Is 
the law sin ? God forbid. Nay, I had not known lust, except 
the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. For without the law 
sin is dead. When the commandment came, sin revived and 
I died. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, 
and just, and good. Sin is not imputed when there is no law. 
Moreover, the law entered, that the offence might abound. But 
where sin abounded, grace did much more abound : that as sin 
hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through 
righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ, our Lord. We 



86 Twentieth Century Christianity 

were reconciled to God by the death of his Son : much more, 
being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." John said, 
"The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth come by 
Jesus Christ." Jesus Christ, having come to fulfill the law's 
demands, becomes the Mercy Seat through which God can 
commune with us and we become reconciled to God. The Jews 
could not go before the Mercy Seat personally; they were 
represented by the high priest. So Jesus Christ becomes our 
High Priest before God. He stands between us and God as 
our Solicitor. 

The Passover Lamb was typical of Christ. A male lamb, 
without blemish, the first of the flock. Its blood sprinkled over 
the doors was a sign for the Death Angel to pass over such 
houses. Christ was the first-born and only begotten Son of 
God — without blemish. His blood is our sign against the 
Death Angel of the Judgment. 

The Scape Goat was typical. Aaron was to lay his hands 
on the head of the goat, confess over him the iniquities of the 
people, and send him forth into the wilderness, signifying that 
the sins were carried away into forgetfulness. So, Christ bear- 
ing away our sins, they are no longer imputed to us. "All we 
like sheep have gone astray: we have turned every one to his 
own way : and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." 
This was Isaiah's prophecy concerning Christ. 

Jonah's burial in the belly of the fish for three days and 
three nights forecasts Christ's burial in the heart of the earth. 
Christ said, "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign ; 
and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet 
Jonas." 

Christ's life foretold 

How remarkable in detail is the prophecy of Isaiah spoken 
over seven hundred years before Christ ! We read with wonder, 
in the fifty-third chapter, of Christ's sufferings, his maltreat^ 
ment; how he was to be wounded for our transgressions; of 



The Wheat and Tares 87 

his stripes ; how he opened not his mouth ; brought as a sheep 
to the slaughter, taken from prison and from judgment; cut 
off from the living ; his grave made with the wicked, and with 
the rich in his death ; and of his final triumph. We ask, Did 
Christ measure up to the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah? 

Of the works to be expected of the promised Christ, Isaiah 
foretold : ''Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened, and the 
ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man 
leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing." Christ said, 
"I came to fulfill the law and the prophets." Did he do it? 
When John Baptist, lying in prison, heard of Christ's works, he 
sent to Christ to inquire if he were really the Messiah. Christ 
offered his works as evidence. That was all John needed, for 
he knew the prophecies. 

Of Christ's birth, Isaiah said, "Therefore the Lord himself 
shall give you a sign : Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear 
a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." The very nature of 
Christ's birth was to be a sign. The fulfillment of this prophecy 
is told in Luke 1 : 26-30, and of this we shall speak later. It is 
remarkable that over seven hundred years before Christ, Micah 
prophesied, "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be 
little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he 
come forth unto me that is to be ruler over Israel : whose goings 
forth have been from old, from everlasting." We are all fa- 
miliar with the birth of Christ in Bethlehem as foretold. Is it 
not strange that even the very locality of his birth was foretold ? 

These are a few of the things from the ceremonial laws and 
the prophets which Christ expounded concerning himself. The 
Old Testament is full of life because it is full of Christ. Every- 
thing that God commanded was for a purpose and with a 
definite meaning. It is all beautiful and wonderful when we 
read it in the handwriting of God. 



Article Nine 
IS THE VIRGIN BIRTH A MYTH? 

AMONG other supernatural things taught in the Bible, 
which have been questioned by our anti-Christian phi- 
losophers, is the peculiar character of Christ's birth 
known as the Virgin Birth. Why should doubt arise? The 
doubt really seems more remarkable than the miracle. Let us 
see. 

If we follow the reasoning of Epicurus and agree that all 
things were created by the homogeneous protoplasmic forma- 
tion of atoms, we come up against the question, as did Aristotle 
and Democritus, Whence came the atom? Whence came the 
protoplast? Again, granting the existence of the atom, How 
did it find its congenial group ? How did all the various atoms 
group themselves to form earth, water, fire, air, life, etc? We 
are forced to acknowledge a great First Cause, a Supreme 
Creative Principle or Power. Revelation tells us that this 
great First Cause or Creative Principle or Power is God. Now, 
among the works of God we find man — eminently the greatest 
of all God's creatures. How did God create man? Some scien- 
tists have told us that God practiced on the monkey — that man 
is an evolution of the monkey. Some have tried to trace their 
ancestry back to certain species of monkey. Well, in some 
cases, we grant the argument to the affirmative. The symptoms 
are so favorable. But we are treating the question in its gen- 
eral application. Why should God first create a monkey in 
order to find out how to make a man ? The fact is, this is now 
a dead theory as are most other theories formerly advanced in 
contradiction of Revelation, and as will be, in time, all the pres- 
ent-day anti-Christian theories. 

Revelation says, "The Lord God formed man of the dust of 
the earth, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life : and 



The Wheat and Tares 89 

man became a living soul." David believed this, for he said, 
"He knoweth our frame : he remembereth that we are dust." 

Solomon believed it, for he wrote, "Then shall the dust 
return to the earth as it was : and the spirit shall return to God 
who gave it." 

Isaiah taught it — "But now, O Lord, thou art our father: 
we are the clay, and thou our potter : and we all are the work 
of thy hand." 

Paul expressed his belief, in these words, "The first man is 
of the earth, earthy." 

Yet our philosopher ridicules the idea. Well, if God did 
not create man out of dust of the earth as he told Moses he did, 
— just suppose God was mistaken, — will our worthy philosopher 
tell us how God did create man? The accepted fact is, God 
created man. Now, then, no matter how, when, or where the 
creation took place, it is evident that God was not assisted in 
any way, shape, or form by a human being because there was 
not a human being nor any human agency to assist him. It is 
remarkable that God could possibly have got along without a 
twentieth century scientist or philosopher, but it seems that 
somehow he did so. 

We come now to the next step. God said : "It is not good 
for man to be alone. He should have a mate." So we are told 
that God caused a deep sleep to overcome Adam, and he took 
a rib from Adam's side and used it as a basis for the creation 
of a female companion. When she was presented to Adam, he 
said, "She is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh: she shall 
be called woman because she was taken out of man." 

Paul believed this, as shown by his words, "For the man is 
not of the woman ; but the woman of the man." 

Jesus believed it. He said, "Have ye not read, that he which 
made them at the beginning made them male and female, for 
this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave 
to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh." Notice the 
question, "Have ye not read?" Read where? Where could 



90 Twentieth Century Christianity 

they have read it? Why, bless you, there was only one place 
they could have read it and that was in the Book of Moses from 
which we have just quoted. Did Jesus actually believe in the 
Book of Moses — that book of myths and legends ? On another 
occasion he said, "If it were not so I would have told you." 
Yes, and if this were not true, Jesus certainly would not have 
said it is true. Yet our Mr. Philosopher ridicules the Book of 
Genesis and the recorded history of the creation of man. 

We admit that God created woman as well as man. Would 
it have been any easier to have made her directly from the earth, 
or to have collected a lot of atoms from the air, than to have 
created her out of Adam's side as stated? It seems that God 
chose the latter method. Perhaps he did not know that it would 
not be approved by the twentieth century philosophers. Per- 
haps there was a reason. We believe there was. We believe 
the reason is given in these words, "And they shall be one 
flesh" — words spoken at the creation and again by our Lord. 
It was to signify how God regards the marriage vow. Bone 
of bone and flesh of flesh. What God hath joined let not man 
cleave asunder. 

We now consider the case of Abraham and Sarah. Accord- 
ing to natural physical law, human life arrives at an age when 
the power of generating ceases. Abraham and Sarah had passed 
this age. '"Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken 
in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of 
women." Yet the Lord told Abraham that he would return 
unto them the time of life and Sarah should bear him a son. 
This seemed so ridiculous to Sarah that she laughed and doubt- 
ingly asked, "Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old?" 
And the Lord said, "Is anything too hard for the Lord?" Well, 
Isaac was born as the Lord promised. So in this case it seems 
that natural law was suspended or overruled. It was not too 
hard for God to do that. It appears that God is really able to 
do some things out of the regular order. 



The Wheat and Tares 91 

Now, to digress a little. This very birth of Isaac, as Paul 
explained to the Galatians (Gal. 4:22-24), was an allegory. 
Abraham had a son, Ishmael, by an Egyptian bondwoman, Agar. 
But his wife, Sarah, had born no children up to the time of her 
old age. Isaac was the child of promise, born of a freewoman 
(Gen. 16). Now, Paul says: Agar represents Sinai, in Arabia, 
standing for the first covenant, the law, "which gendereth to 
bondage"; and Sinai stands for Jerusalem, "which now is, and 
is in bondage with her children," that is, under the law. But 
Sarah, the freewoman and wife of Abraham, represents the 
Jerusalem above, or Jerusalem under redemption, the mother 
of the redeemed. This is the second covenant. And so, Paul 
argues, as Isaac was the child of promise, so are we, the re- 
deemed, children of promise. "But as then, he that was born 
after the flesh [Ishmael] persecuted him that was born after 
the Spirit [Isaac], even so it is now" (Gal. 4: 29). And to-day, 
we find that our un-Spiritual religionists, who are living under 
the bondage of law, are ridiculing those who are living under 
the new covenant of Mercy, through Jesus Christ our Lord. 
"Nevertheless, what saith the Scriptures? Cast out the bond- 
woman and her son : for the son of the bondwoman shall not be 
heir with the son of the freewoman" (Gal. 4:30). This is 
prophetic of the end of those who prefer the bondage of the law 
to the freedom under Jesus Christ. 

We now proceed. 

CONCERNING CHRIST?' S BIRTH 

Now, then, what were the prophecies concerning the birth 
of Christ ? Isaiah 49 : 1 : "The Lord hath called me from the 
womb" — apparently meaning that the voice of God should 
simply call Christ forth, no human agency considered. Again, 
Isaiah 7:14: "The Lord himself shall give you a sign : Behold, 
a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name 
Immanuel." Over seven hundred years prior to Christ's advent 
it was foretold that he should come forth from a virgin. Luke, 



92 Twentieth Century Christianity 

the physician, gives us this record of the fulfillment : "And in 
the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a 
city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man 
whose name was Joseph, of the house of David ; and the virgin's 
name was Mary. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary : 
for thou hast found favor with God. And behold, thou shalt 
conceive in the womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his 
name Jesus. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the 
power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also 
that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the 
Son of God." 

Luke wrote this to Theophilus. Both were learned Greeks. 
Luke was a physician thoroughly familiar with all natural pro- 
cesses in a professional way. Yet he is writing this to his 
"most excellent" Greek friend, that he "might know the cer- 
tainty of those things, wherein he has been instructed." 

Matthew tells us that Joseph, when he discovered his wife's 
condition, knowing that they had not exercised their matri- 
monial privilege, was ashamed and wanted to put Mary away 
privately. It was then that the angel revealed to him the 
divine origin of Mary's conception. 

Why doubt it? Is anything too hard for the Lord? Why 
should God depend upon human agency for the embryo of 
Christ's body? If God could create the first Adam without 
human agency ; if God could create the first woman out of the 
side of a man ; if God could transcend Natural law for Abraham 
and Sarah ; why should he be denied the power to create the 
body for the second Adam without human agency ? Why should 
God be limited to Natural law which itself is subject unto him? 
Human agency and Natural law were entirely out of the ques- 
tion, for Christ had lived from the beginning, and this birth 
was merely an incarnation. The regular process would have 
injected a life that would have been absolutely inconsistent with 
a perfect incarnation of a preexisting life. 



The Wheat and Tares 93 

We cannot accept the Scriptures or the teachings of Jesus 
and deny the fact of Christ's preexistence to his advent on earth. 
We read : "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was 
with God, and the Word w r as God. The same was in the be- 
ginning with God. All things were made by him ; and without 
him was not anything made that was made." Said Christ, "I 
came down from heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of 
him that sent me." In Christ's prayer for believers as re- 
corded by John, we find, "Thou lovedst me before the founda- 
tion of the world." Christ invariably and positively taught that 
he existed with God prior to his advent on earth. He was born 
"not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of 
man, but of God." 

Was it any easier for God to create the first Adam from 
dust, or from atoms, or from anything you will have, than for 
him to call forth his Son from the womb? God might have 
chosen other methods, but he chose this one. It was preemi- 
nently the best method, for it gave to us a Christ complete in 
all human manifestations, comprehensive to the natural mind. 
It gave to every little child a Jesus that the child mind could 
grasp and that the child heart could love. It was a method that 
could strike a responsive chord in every mother's breast, and 
cause the busy father to pause and bow in reverence. Obvi- 
ously, no other method would have given us the same concep- 
tion of Christ, and it is clear that no other method could pos- 
sibly have been so beautiful in its simplicity, nor so complete 
in its revelation to us of God as a Father to us, his children. 



Article Ten 
DID CHRIST TEACH SOCIAL SERVICE? 

GREAT stress is being laid on the Social Service or Wel- 
fare Work of Christ. The demand is made of the 
church, from certain sources, that it stop preaching so 
much of future life and give more attention to the practical 
questions of the present life. But those who see in the life of 
Christ only temporal welfare work have but a meager and 
inadequate conception of his earthly mission. They only see 
the human Jesus and not the Spiritual Christ. Likewise, they 
fail to understand the very purpose of the church. 

What was Christ's mission? His answer is, "I came not 
to destroy but to fulfill." "I came that they might have life and 
that they might have it more abundantly." Christ's so-called 
welfare work was only intended as an evidence of his Deity. 
The New Commandment and the Golden Rule in application 
were to be the spontaneous result of the new Spiritual life. The 
nature of welfare work is temporal. It pertains to this life. 
Christ's interest in this life was that it should be a preparation, 
a development, and a test for the future life. Now, the wheat 
and the tares, the sheep and the goats, are growing together. 
They are being detected. Christ constantly taught that we 
should not concern ourselves unduly about the things of this 
world. "Take no thought for the morrow." "Lay not up 
treasure on earth but lay it up in heaven." "Seek first the 
kingdom of God and all these things shall be added unto you." 
This is the attitude he taught. Social service is fruit of the vine 
and not the vine. It is a by-product of true Christianity. But 
Christian Social Service has only to do with those things that 
uplift and help mankind. There is a tendency to include things 
that are naturally opposed to Spiritual life and even social life. 



The Wheat and Tares 95 

Sunday baseball and the public or municipal dance-hall cannot 
be considered as within the scope of Christian welfare work. 
When a police detail is required to guard any amusement or 
recreation, there is an implied acknowledgment of existing 
danger. Danger is never uplifting. 

Prophets foretold that at the advent of the Messianic period, 
the blind should receive sight, the deaf should hear, the dumb 
should speak, the lame should walk, and the poor should have 
the gospel preached to them. These were to be signs by which 
the Messiah should be recognized. In fulfilling these proph- 
ecies Christ wrought the signs for his identification. The in- 
visible things of God are clearly seen, being manifested by the 
things that are made." The purpose of Christ was, to be seen 
in his Spiritual power through the manifestation of his Material 
works. "I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, 
but the will of him that sent me. And this is the will of him 
that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth 
on him, may have everlasting life : and I will raise him up at the 
last day." "This is the work of God that ye believe on him 
whom he hath sent." 

When Christ healed the man born blind, and he was asked 
for whose sin the man was born blind, Christ answered, 
"Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents : but that the 
works of God should be made manifest in him." "The works 
that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me." "If 
I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, 
though ye believe not me, believe the works : that ye may know, 
and believe that the Father is in me and I in him. 

When the Jews refused to accept Christ, he said : "Do not 
think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that 
accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye 
believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me. 
But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my 
words?" Christ refers the Jews to the very books of Moses 
which our un-Spiritual philosophers are ridiculing to-day. Had 



96 Twentieth Century Christianity 

the Jews understood these books, had they interpreted them 
correctly and believed them, they would have recognized Christ 
and believed him. It was because of this unbelief that the 
works were performed with the view that their eyes might be 
opened. 

Why did Christ raise Lazarus from the dead ? His answer, 
"To the intent that ye might believe." "I am the resurrection 
and the life : he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet 
shall he live." We might go on to show that the whole purpose 
of Christ's works was to reveal his identity with the Father. 
Had Christ simply preached that he was the Messiah without 
showing any evidence, then every one might be excused for not 
believing and accepting him. But as Christ told the Jews that 
Moses would condemn them for their unbelief, so may we be 
sure that we shall be condemned if we believe not in the face 
of prophecy and works. "And this is the condemnation, that 
light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than 
light." 

Welfare work is not going to save us. "Many will say to me 
in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? 
and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done 
many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, 
I never knew you : depart from me, ye that work iniquity." 
This is the class that denies Christ as the Redeemer and tries 
to substitute welfare work for Christianity. Pity those who 
to-day are denying the deity of Christ and who say, "We do 
not covet the title 'Christian' if one must believe the myths and 
legends and miracle-stories of Genesis : that God came into the 
world, through the birth, by a virgin, of a God-man: that all 
hope for humanity is conditioned upon knowledge of and be- 
lief in this God-man, etc." And whose whole "reliance is upon 
a world of nature, as a world of law and order, into which no 
miracle has ever intruded." 

Did Christ perform miracles ? Let his enemies testify. When 
Jesus went to Nazareth to teach and perform his works that 



The Wheat and Tares 97 

the people might believe, the Jews said: "We know this man 
and his whole family. Whence obtained he this wisdom and 
this power to do such mighty works ?" And they drove him out 
of the country. But notice: in condemning him, they ac- 
knowledged his "mighty works." When word reached Herod 
of the wonderful miracles Christ was performing, the Jews, not 
being able to account for the wonders otherwise, said, "He is 
Elijah returned to earth." But Herod said, "No, he is John 
Baptist, whom I beheaded, returned from the dead; therefore 
he is able to do these wonderful things." 

After the raising of Lazarus, many of the Jews who had 
seen the miracle believed on him. Then the Sanhedrin held a 
council, and said: "What do we? for this man doeth many 
miracles. If we let him alone, all men will believe on him: and 
the Romans will come and take away both our place and our 
nation." And they conspired to put him to death. Here we see 
that the Jewish council, which, as a body, were, from first to 
last, enemies of Christ, acknowledged that he did many mir- 
acles. On one occasion, after this miracle, Christ was stopping 
at the home of Mary and Martha. Lazarus was present with 
a company of others. The Jews, coming up to Jerusalem to 
the Passover, heard of the miracle and "much people of the 
Jews therefore knew he was there : and they came not for 
Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he 
had raised from the dead." The fact to notice is : the fame of 
the miracle had spread all over the country. It was no secret 
event. And "by reason of him [Lazarus] many of the Jews 
went away, and believed on Jesus." Then "the chief priests 
consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death." Here 
again we have the witness of Christ's enemies to the fact of 
this miracle. 

On one occasion, when Christ had restored sight and speech 
to a man, the Pharisees said, This fellow doth not cast out 
devils but by Beelzebub, the prince of devils. They acknowl- 
edged his work but imputed it to evil spirits. When Pilate 



98 Twentieth Century Christianity 

sent Jesus to Herod, he was "exceeding glad : for he was desir- 
ous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many 
things of him and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by 
him." Thus we see that among the common people and in the 
political and ecclesiastic circles it was recognized that Christ 
performed wonderful miracles. We also have the statement of 
Josephus, who, though not a follower of Christ, was, however, 
a true historian. He says, "Now, there was about this time, 
Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was 
a doer of wonderful works." We have only appealed to the 
enemies of Christ for proof. We have gone where we would 
naturally find evidence against him if any existed. But we 
have found, on the contrary, proof positive of Christ's won- 
derful works. But there is another we have not mentioned. 
There was Judas Iscariot, a member of the inner circle, one of 
the. select twelve, one who was constantly with Jesus both in 
public and in private. He was familiar with all the innermost 
councils ; if there were any deception, if there were any leger- 
demain, if there were merely an hypnotic influence exercised, 
Judas would know the secret, and Judas, the traitor, would be 
glad to tell us. Let us ask Judas while the tainted silver is 
tinkling in his pocket. Judas, was there any deception in 
Christ's miracles? Listen to him as the anguish of remorse 
gnaws at his heart ; yes, listen to that deep moan of the demon- 
iac as he rushes in to the high priests and throws the silver at 
their feet and cries out, Oh, I have betrayed innocent blood! 
I have betrayed innocent blood ! then straightway goes out and 
commits suicide. 

Then listen to his enemies as they mock him while hanging 
on the cross : "He saved others, himself he cannot save." 

Oh, you who are denying the Christ, the Anointed One, the 
Savior, you who are trying to ridicule his miracles: Do you 
not see that you are crucifying him afresh? You are actually 
trying to kill the Christ in the twentieth century — why ? Listen 
to the words of Jesus, whose teachings you say you accept — 



The Wheat and Tares 99 

listen to these words from his lips : "Ye seek to kill me because 
my word hath no place in you." 

"It is written in the prophets, And they shall be taught of 
God. Every man, therefore, that hath heard, and hath learned 
of the Father, cometh unto me." 

"I have a greater witness than that of John : for the works 
which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that 
I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me" (John 
5:36). 



"Beware how, in making the portraiture, thou 
breakest the pattern." 

— Lord Francis Bacon. 



Article Eleven 



WHAT DID CHRIST TEACH CONCERNING 
HIMSELF? 

THE Board of Trustees of a Unitarian church recently 
published a statement in which they took exception to 
these articles on Christianity, accusing them of hostility 
to Christianity. They point with pride to the following state- 
ment adopted at a national conference of their Church : "These 
churches accept the religion of Jesus, holding, in accord with 
his teaching, that practical religion is summed up in love to God 
and love to man." 

Taken by itself, this statement sounds very good. Some of 
the leaders of this sect have also stated at various times that 
they believe in the teaching of Jesus. Let us test these asser- 
tions. 

There are no more important teachings of Jesus than those 
concerning himself. They involve everything pertaining to the 
Christian religion, including the source of Jesus' doctrines and 
his authority as a teacher. 

What did Jesus teach concerning his identity? John 16 : 28 
"I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world 
again I leave the world and go to the Father." John 8 : 42 
"I proceeded forth and came from God: neither came I of 
myself, but he sent me." John 8 : 58 : "Verily, I say unto you, 
before Abraham was, I am." John 17: 24, from Jesus' prayer: 
"Father, thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world." 



The Wheat and Tares 101 

These are a few of the passages in which Jesus claimed 
existence with God prior to his incarnation. 

Did Jesus teach his equality with God? John 5: 17: "My 
Father worketh hitherto and I work." For this saying the 
Jews sought to kill him because they said he made himself equal 
with God (John 5: 18). John 10:30: "I and my Father are 
one." For this the Jews took up stones to stone him, for, they 
said, "thou, being a man, makest thyself God." John 10:38: 
Jesus told the Jews, "Believe the works : that ye may know that 
the Father is in me, and I in him." John 5 : 23 : Jesus said, 
"All men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. 
He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father which 
hath sent him." 

CHRIST EQUAL WITH GOD 

The foregoing are only a few of the passages which show 
clearly that Jesus taught that he was preexistent to his advent 
on earth, and that he and God are one and equivalent. There 
is no equivocation. The statements are positive. If we are 
to claim belief in the teachings of Jesus, we must believe these, 
for they are a part of the teachings of Jesus. We have not 
drawn on the prophets, nor the disciples, nor the voice from 
heaven. We have only taken Jesus' own words. Do our un- 
Spiritual friends believe them? Here is what they published 
through their Board of Trustees : "If, in order to be a Chris- 
tian, one must believe that God came into the world, through 
the birth, by a virgin, of a God-man, that all hope for humanity 
is conditioned upon knowledge of and belief in this God-man, 
then we must admit that we do not covet the title. We are 
Christians if to be a Christian is to have a triumphant joy in 
the fact that Jesus was a man, a product of humanity." In 
other words, they do not believe Jesus when he says that he 
is come into the world as God manifest in the flesh. Yet they 
say that they believe his teachings. How do they reconcile 
their two statements? 



102 Twentieth Century Christianity 

If Jesus did not possess deity as he claimed, then he lied. 
These are plain words, but why varnish the truth ? Come right 
out and say what you mean. We can understand you better 
in plain terms. Now, if Jesus lied, then he was the greatest 
imposter that ever lived and deserves no honor whatever, and 
all his teachings are vain, for they are without authority. Then 
let us drop Jesus and go back to Moses, who was a great 
teacher, leader, and law-giver. Let us be satisfied with the 
Proverbs of Solomon and the Songs of David. None of these 
men can be accused of being hypocrites, imposters, or blas- 
phemers. 

These deniers of Christ claim to believe the teachings of 
Jesus. What did Jesus teach concerning himself as the Re- 
deemer ? Read John 3:16: 

"God so loved the world, that he gave his 
Only begotten 

Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not 
Perish, but have 
Everlasting 
Life." 

Notice that the initial letters of each line, reading downward, 
spell the word "GOSPEL." Did you ever realize that the 
whole Gospel is bound up in this one verse ? 

Now read verse eighteen : "He that believeth on him is not 
condemned : but he that believeth not is condemned already, 
because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten 
Son of God." 

Matthew 18: 11: "The Son of man is come to save that 
which was lost." 

John 10: 9 : "I am the door : by me if any man enter in, he 
shall be saved." 

Again, we have quoted but a few of the passages bearing on 
the question, and all are the recorded personal teachings of 
Jesus. It is absurd to say that Jesus only thought of saving 



The Wheat and Tares 103 

men from themselves in this life. The whole weight of his 
works and teachings contradicts this thought. His promise of 
everlasting life through belief on him, proves that he had no 
thought of merely a temporal moral uplift. He emphatically 
taught that he is the door to everlasting life for those who were 
dead in sin. Do our un-Spiritual friends believe this? They 
claim to believe the teachings of Jesus. Their Board of Trus- 
tees states that they do not believe that all hope for humanity 
is conditioned upon knowledge of and belief in this God-man. 
Yet Jesus says it is. Their leading light, Dr. Charles W. Eliot, 
says of Jesus, that he is "the supreme teacher of religion, whose 
teachings have proved to be the undying root of all the best in 
human history since he lived." This is good. Every Christian 
can subscribe to this statement as a fact. But in the face of this 
fact, Dr. Eliot denies the very teachings of Jesus that cause the 
fact to be. Jesus said that he and God are one and equivalent. 
Dr. Eliot says this is not so. Jesus said eternal life is only 
accessible to those who believe on him and accept him and con- 
fess him before men. Dr. Eliot says this is not true. 
The rank and file of Dr. Eliot's sect say this is not true. Then 
Jesus lied. If he lied he was an imposter and a blasphemer. 
Is such a' man to be accepted as "the supreme teacher of reli- 
gion"? Could the teachings of such a man prove to be "the 
undying root of all the best in human history since he lived" ? 

THE LINE DRAWN 

Matt. 12 : 33 : Jesus said, "Either make the tree good, and 
his fruit good : or else make the tree corrupt and his fruit cor- 
rupt : for the tree is known by his fruit." Matt. 7:16: "Do men 
gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles ?" Verse 18 : "A good 
tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree 
bring forth good fruit." A tree does not bring forth two kinds 
of fruit — part good and part evil. The analogy is, that a su- 
preme teacher of religion cannot teach part good and part evil 
doctrines. As Christ would have it: Do one of two things; 



104 Twentieth Century Christianity 

either make the teacher good all the way through and his teach- 
ings good all the way through, or else make both the teacher 
and his teachings corrupt throughout. If he is a thorn or a 
thistle part of the time, then, depend upon it, that is his nature 
all the time. Christ permits of no middle ground. He pro- 
poses to stand or fall with each individual on the evidence of 
his teachings and his works as a whole. They are either all 
good or all bad. He grants no permission of selection as to 
which of his teachings shall be accepted and which shall be 
rejected. He claims that they are all of his Father-God. Jesus 
said, "He that is not with me is against me : he that gathereth 
not with me scattereth abroad" (Matt. 12:30). Figuratively, 
Jesus draws a line and places everybody on one side or the 
other of this line. All who are with him are placed on one side. 
All who are against him are placed on the other side. Those 
who go with him must go with him all the way. Those who 
believe on him must believe him to be all things that he claimed 
to be. If we doubt him in some things, then we are not with 
him in those things. We are not wholly with him. Then, ac- 
cording to Jesus, if we are not wholly with him, we are against 
him. We cannot straddle the line and jump from one side 
to the other and back again. We cannot ridicule his deity, his 
works, his resurection, his ascension, his saving power — all of 
which he taught by personal prophecy and by fulfillment, and 
by plain, unequivocal statements — and then say we believe his 
teachings. That would be an absurd position to take. We can- 
not call him a liar, an imposter, and a blasphemer in one breath 
and then praise his teachings in the next. The tenet of Jesus is : 
Those who are not for me are against me, first, last, and all the 
time. Where do we stand ? Are we for him ? or are we against 
him? 



Article Twelve 
IS THERE A HOLY SPIRIT ? 

WE now come to a very important question in the dis- 
cussion of the Christian religion. WhaS. did Christ 
teach concerning the Holy Spirit? 

There is no doubt that Christ taught the existence of a 
triune God. All through his ministry he spoke of the Father, 
referred to himself as the Son, and promised to send the Holy 
Spirit after his departure from earth. In his last words he 
commanded the disciples to go into all the world and preach 
the gospel to every creature and to baptize believers in the 
name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. 

Our un-Spiritual friends deny that there is a Holy Spirit, 
a third person in the Godhead, which deals with mankind. They 
do not understand the Holy Spirit because they are out of 
correspondence, or communion, with the Spiritual world. But 
there is not a truly converted and regenerated Christian who 
would deny the existence of the Holy Spirit, because every such 
person, who is living a true Christian life, has had and is having 
daily the experience of the presence of the Holy Spirit as 
Christ promised. 

John 14: 16-17: Christ said, "I will pray the Father, and he 
shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you 
forever ; even the Spirit of Truth ; whom the world cannot re- 
ceive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him : but ye 
know him ; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." If 
we had no other evidence of the deity of Christ, the fulfillment 
of this promise would be sufficient. It is because of this daily 
evidence in the Christian's life that he is proof against all the 
false and foolish doctrines of anti-Christian teachers. Those 
so-called Christians who have wandered into heterodox sects 



106 Twentieth Century Christianity 

may have been church members, but we say positively that they 
were not true Christians and we have Christ's words to back us 
up. Every such person has previously opened the way for evil 
to get into his life by worldly absorption crowding out the 
Spirit of God. We notice that Christ refers to the Holy Spirit 
as the Comforter and the Spirit of Truth. This interpre- 
tation is made clear in verse 26 : "The Comforter which is the 
Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall 
teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, 
whatsoever I have said unto you." 

THE HOLY SPIRIT TEACHES 

The Holy Spirit, therefore, is a teacher. He is the Spirit of 
Truth. He teaches the Truth. He is sent in Christ's name. He 
abides with the Christian and dwells within him. By this in- 
dwelling of the Spirit of Truth, the Christian is divinely taught 
the Truth as revealed in Scripture. In other words, the Chris- 
tian spontaneously receives and believes the Spiritual truths of 
Scripture because they are made clear to him. He discerns 
them Spiritually. This implies, of course, that he seeks instruc- 
tion. 

The Natural mind cannot understand these things because it 
tries to reason them out from Natural laws. It tries to prove 
Spiritual questions by Natural science. This cannot be done. 
Christ said so. Christian experience teaches it to be so. Un- 
Spiritual philosophers talk about Truth and they do not know 
Truth, because the Spirit of Truth is not in them. They are 
blind leaders of the blind. 

This Spirit of Truth proceeds from God. John 15:26: 
"The Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he 
shall testify of me." That is why the Christian does not doubt 
the deity of Christ. The indwelling of the Spirit of Truth is a 
daily testimony of the truth of Christ's deity. The Christian 
has within him a witness to the fact direct from God's throne. 
John 16: 13: "When the Spirit of Truth is come, he will guide 



The Wheat and Tares 107 

you into all truth : for he shall not speak of himself ; but what- 
soever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you 
things to come." Those who seek the Truth will be guided 
into all Truth by God through the medium of the Holy Spirit 
by which God himself communicates to those who are prepared 
to receive the Truth. Those who worship at the throne of their 
own intellect are blinded to the Truth because they combat the 
Spirit of Truth. For that reason, as Paul said to the Corin- 
thians, "the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolish- 
ness ; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." On 
the other hand, these philosophers, in trying to teach things 
they do not understand, are constantly uttering the most con- 
summate folly. 

Jesus said (John 16: 15), "All things that the Father hath 
are mine: therefore said I, that he [Holy Spirit] shall take of 
mine, and shall shew it unto you." The Holy Spirit has access 
to all things, and he will show these things, or reveal these 
things, to us. But in order to teach us all these truths, the 
Holy Spirit must dwell within us. He cannot teach us from 
without. 

Every one cannot receive the Holy Spirit. Christ said so. 
Men of the world cannot receive him. Such men do not know 
him. We must first be born anew. Not until we are regener- 
ated can Christ send the Holy Spirit to us to dwell within us. 
The Spirit of Truth is holy. He cannot abide in a temple 
contaminated by sin. The temple must first be cleansed. When 
the Spirit of Truth dwells within us we can take up God's 
Word and the things that were darkness to us will become 
illumined by the Light of Truth. The Spirit will guide our 
thoughts into all Truth. But there is something the Holy Spirit 
will do for those still in the world. John 16 : 8 : "When the 
Holy Spirit is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of 
righteousness, and of judgment." That is to say, that the Holy 
Spirit will convince the world of these things. All Spiritual 
progress is made through the convincing power of the Holy 



108 Twentieth Century Christianity 

Spirit. He cannot dwell within an unconverted soul, but he 
will endeavor to draw such a soul to Christ by working from 
without, by convincing it of sin because of unbelief and non- 
acceptance of Christ. He will strive to do this. But God said, 
"My Spirit will not always strive with man" (Gen. 6:3). So 
while the Spirit will strive from without and will work patiently 
for a time, there comes a time when the Spirit will depart for- 
ever. This brings us to the thought of 

THE UNPARDONABLE SIN 

The question is not always clearly understood. What is the 
unpardonable sin ? We undertake to answer from Scripture as 
we understand it. 

God said, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy 
God, in vain, for God will not hold him guiltless who taketh 
his name in vain." One is not held without guilt who profanes 
God's name. But this does not indicate unpardonable guilt. 
Jesus said (Matt. 12 : 32), "Whosoever speaketh a word against 
the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him." Jesus will overlook 
disrespect toward himself if one repents of the sin. But notice 
this (Matt. 12: 31-32) : "Whosoever speaketh against the Holy 
Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor 
the world to come. I say unto you, all manner of blasphemy 
shall be forgiven unto men: but blasphemy against the Holy 
Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." Jesus said this when 
the people accused him of having an unclean spirit (Mark 
3:20). It is a sin to lie to the Holy Ghost. (Acts 5:3-5) 
Ananias and Sapphira, by making a false pretense of contribut- 
ing their entire possessions to the church, were condemned for 
lying to the Holy Ghost and both were stricken dead. It is a 
sin to try to commercialize the power of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 
8 : 18-24) Simon, the sorcerer, thought to purchase the power 
of the Holy Ghost. Peter said, "Pray God if perhaps the 
thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee." Peter considered 
forgiveness doubtful. It is a sin to grieve the Holy Spirit. 



The Wheat and Tares 109 

(Ephesians 4 : 30) "Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby 
ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.'' It is a sin to quench, 
or hold back, or hinder, the Holy Spirit. (I. Thess. 5: 19) 
"Quench not the Spirit." It is no light thing to ridicule "Reli- 
gious Sprees" in order to push one's hobby of playgrounds, 
Sunday baseball, and municipal dance halls under the surveil- 
lance of the police department. 

We are dependent on the Holy Spirit to bring us to the point 
of repentance, for regeneration, to teach us the truth, to reveal 
Christ, and to guide us in righteousness. It is obvious, there- 
fore, that if we disrespect him in any way, we shall be without 
these blessings, for he will leave us and we shall remain in our 
sins without pardon. These are the teachings of Jesus. 



Article Thirteen 
WILL THERE BE A FINAL JUDGMENT? 

THE various ideas concerning the Judgment Day may be 
summed up as follows : First, There will be a definite, 
general, final judgment; Second, Judgment is passed 
individually at dissolution, and the soul passes at once to its 
destiny; Third, All judgment is executed in material ways dur- 
ing mortality ; Fourth, Judgment is a myth as all souls are to be 
saved regardless of the deeds of this earthly life. 

What we believe, is not material. The question is, What 
did Christ teach concerning the judgment? Whatever he 
taught is final, regardless of our belief. Our opinion will not 
alter the fact any more than a leopard can change his spots or 
an Ethiopian his skin. 

In several of his parables, Christ taught a definite final 
judgment. The parable of "The Wheat and Tares" illustrates 
how the good and bad shall be separated. Christ explained the 
analogy. The wheat represents the redeemed; the tares, chil- 
dren of the devil; the harvest, the end of the world, or the 
Messianic Age. At that time, just as wheat is separated from 
tares at harvest, the wheat gathered into barns, and the tares 
put in bundles and burned, so shall the redeemed and unre- 
deemed be separated. In the parable of the net of fishes, Christ 
again explains how the good and bad shall be separated at the 
judgment. Other illustrations are found in the parables of 
"The Wedding Garment," "The Ten Virgins," "The Talents," 
etc. 

Sin is a destructive force. Every form of sin eventually 
brings an individual form of material or physical punishment 
in this life. This may be called a Natural sentence, but it is 
not the 'final or Spiritual judgment. 

One day, while sitting on Mount Olivet, Jesus looked across 
the Valley of Jehoshaphat toward Jerusalem. He saw the 



The Wheat and Tares 111 

temple. He thought of his efforts to establish his Messiahship 
with the Jewish hierarchy. He thought of how they had 
despised and rejected him. Then he thought of the future 
when he should be exalted to a throne far more glorious than 
these men could possibly imagine. It was then that he said to 
the group around him, "When the Son of man shall come in 
his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit 
upon the throne of his glory" (Matt. 25:31). When? He 
did not know. The angels in heaven do not know. "No man 
knoweth the day nor the hour." "Only my Father knoweth." 
This is the only thing about the judgment that Jesus claimed 
not to know. All the rest is to be in his hands. God alone can 
forsee when the church shall eventually arouse herself and put 
on her wedding garments preparatory to receiving the Bride- 
groom. But Jesus spoke of the day as a positive fact — a day 
positively denned. It is utter folly for men to prophesy any 
particular or certain day or year. All such prophecies have 
failed in the past and they shall fail in the future. The time 
shall come as a thief in the night — when no man is expecting it. 
It shall come as the lightning which flasheth in one part of the 
heavens and shineth unto another. Men will be about their 
customary pursuits as in the days of Noah. Two shall be grind- 
ing at a mill ; one shall be taken and the other left. 

How shall the Judge come? In his glory — all the holy 
angels with him. Jesus contemplated it with a heart saddened 
by the seeming failure of his three years' ministry among the 
Jews. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how oft would I have gath- 
ered thee as a hen doth her chicks under her wing, and ye 
would not." 

Upon what a scene will he look! (Verses 32-33) : "And 
before him shall be gathered all the nations : and he shall sepa- 
rate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep 
from the goats : and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, 
but the goats on his left." David said (Psalms 50:4-5), "He 
shall call to the heavens from above, and to the earth, that he 



112 Twentieth Century Christianity 

may judge his people. Gather my saints together unto me." 
The heavens shall be called upon for the departed spirits while 
the earth shall produce those still mortal. John said (Rev. 20: 
12-13), "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before 
God : and the books were opened, and the sea gave up the dead 
which were in it : and death and hell [grave] delivered up the 
dead which were in them: and they were judged every man 
according to his works." 

CLASSES AND CONDITIONS 

Yes, there will be a general final judgment. What a multi- 
tude of classes and conditions will appear before the great 
Court. Men of darkest ages — of mediaeval times — of modern 
times — from times of gross ignorance to times of highest intel- 
lectual attainment ; men of all colors ; men of all religions — 
Atheists, Agnostics, Infidels ; men of all languages ; men of all 
vocations ; men of all standards of morality and immorality ; 
rich and poor, high and lowly; but in all this heterogeneous 
mass the Judge shall see just two classes — only two — sheep and 
goats. Thousands of classes before the judgment, only two 
after: the sheep — defenseless, dependent, needing a shepherd, 
obedient, willing to be led, submissive ; the goats — pugnacious, 
stubborn, self-reliant, not submitting to guidance, defiant of the 
shepherd and rebelling against him, preferring to live in their 
own strength. "And he shall set the sheep on his right" — the 
place of honor — "but the goats on his left" — rejected. Christ, 
once the open door to the sheepfold, now stands between the 
sheep and the goats as a closed door. 

Our un-Spiritual friends rebel against this idea of the 
judgment. Will they complain then? Rev 6:5: "And the 
kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the 
chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and 
every freeman, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of 
the mountains : and said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on 
us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, 
and from the Lamb." The glorious holiness and purity of the 



The Wheat and Tares 113 

Judge shall so awe those who have lived in sin and who have 
not been redeemed, that they will seek shelter from his pres- 
ence. Thus they will, in fact, pass judgment on themselves. 
They will be like the lepers of old who stood without the city 
walls and cried out, "Unclean ! Unclean !" 

In his first epistle, 2 : 28, John says, "And now, little chil- 
dren, abide in him : that when he shall appear, we may have 
confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming." 
Those who abide in Christ shall love his appearing. They shall 
rejoice at his coming. 

NO DISPUTES 

There will be no disputes. Every person will just naturally 
go where he belongs. Society here adjusts itself to certain 
standards. Every one seeks and is admitted into a certain class. 
So will it be in the judgment. Matt. 25 : 34: "Then shall the 
King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my 
Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the founda- 
tion of the world." We find Jesus in three successive capac- 
ities — Redeemer, Judge, King. He has conquered. His tri- 
umph is complete. To his followers — the heirs to the kingdom 
— he does not say, Go into the kingdom, but Come with me, 
"that where I am there ye may be also." You have suffered 
with me, you shall be glorified with me. You have acknowl- 
edged me before men, I will acknowledge you before my 
Father. He says, Inherit the kingdom — receive the right 
of being joint heirs with me; not that you have purchased it — 
not that you have earned it — not that you even deserve it — but 
because you are children of God through faith in his Son, Christ 
Jesus. You are children of faith and obedience, heirs through 
the death of Christ. 

"Then shall he say to them on his left hand, Depart from 
me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and 
his angels." The King with the redeemed will enter the heav- 
enly kingdom. The door will be shut forever. Outside will 



114 Twentieth Century Christianity 

be darkness and wailing and gnashing of teeth. It will be hell 
enough just to be outside. 

Our local philosopher sometime ago gave public utterance 
to the thought that it is the height of the Christian's joy to 
imagine himself as redeemed and standing on a mountain top, 
looking down into a valley of suffering souls lost forever, and 
gloating over their miseries. Such a statement is so absurd 
that it seems impossible for it to emanate from a well-balanced 
mind. Just as Christ said, "There is more joy in heaven over 
one soul that is saved than over ninety and nine just persons that 
go not astray," just so there is always rejoicing in the church 
when a lost soul is redeemed. It is the endeavor of true Chris- 
tians everywhere to carry the gospel to the unsaved. 

At the very least, it is the desire of every Christian to 
see men saved whether he works his desire or not. No. There 
will be no rejoicing over those who are left outside. The re- 
deemed will rejoice because they have at last reached home. 
Through faith they have overcome trials and temptations, dis- 
couragements and doubts, but at last, though scarred and 
maimed, they stand in the presence of their King, triumphant. 

Do not waste your time criticising God because he cannot 
admit rebels into his kingdom, but rather subscribe to the con- 
stitution of the kingdom of God and become loyal subjects. 
Since John Baptist first cried in the wilderness of Judea, "Re- 
pent, for the kingdom of God is at hand," the church has con- 
tinued the cry, "Repent — believe and accept !" Those who 
persist in turning a deaf ear to the invitation of the church and 
the warning of the church, will only have themselves to blame 
when they come face to face with the Judge and have to cry 
out, "Unclean! Unclean!" 

Why is the judgment such an unthinkable thing when ap- 
plied to the Spiritual kingdom ? Is it a terrible thing for human 
society to arrest and place on trial the criminal — the violator 
of criminal law — and, finding him guilty, to incarcerate him in 
prison? We say, No. It is necessary to withdraw him from 



The Wheat and Tares 115 

society. Otherwise society would not be safe. Neither prop- 
erty nor the person would be safe. For that reason, the law 
is enacted and enforced. Then why should not the society of 
heaven be equally well protected? But you reply that the 
presence of God in heaven will prevent evil, and that when the 
soul reaches heaven the conditions will be different and it will 
no longer desire to do evil or rebel against God. But where 
is your proof? The evidence is against you. God is just as 
present in this world as he will be in heaven. The soul will be 
just as much of a free moral agent in heaven as it is in this 
world. If it has rebelled against God in this world; if it has 
refused to obey the injunctions and commands of God here; 
how can it be trusted in heaven? Being in heaven did not 
prevent Satan and his cohorts from rebelling against God. 

No. This world is the testing ground. We are now in the 
refiner's pot. The true metal is being separated from the dross. 
We are surrounded by good and evil. We constantly have two 
pictures before us for our selection. We may choose either 
one. God is daily showing us the results of evil and likewise 
of good. He is asking us to weigh the results. He asks us to 
carefully make our choice. All of our sorrows, our difficulties, 
our afflictions, our reverses and distresses, are agents like a 
"refiner's fire and a fuller's soap." If our faith fail not, we 
shall pass through the valley of the shadow of death in glory, 
for we have tested out true metal. But if, in the face of God's 
warnings, we persist in evil and continue to rebel against God's 
ways, then we have shown our true character to be dross and 
unfit for the kingdom. Whatever our lives are here, they will 
be hereafter. If they are not in harmony with God here, they 
never will be, and we would be in discord with the spirit of 
heaven and a constant menace to the peace which is promised 
to the followers of Jesus Christ. 

Is the judgment such an unthinkable thing? We believe 
it is a very logical thing. At any rate, Christ positively taught 
it as a certainty and we must accept it. 



To die, to sleep ; 

To sleep : perchance to dream : ay, there's the rub; 
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come, 
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, 
Must give us pause." 

— Hamlet, Shakespeare. 



Article Fourteen 
IS HELL A MYTH? 

WHILE nearly every one believes in heaven and lives in 
the hope of a future existence free from the evils of 
this mortal life, a great many are unwilling to accept 
the idea of eternal punishment or hell. 

Many people prefer to spend this life in unrestricted license 
rather than to submit to the Moral and Spiritual obligations of 
Christianity; then they rebel at the thought of paying a penalty 
for disobeying God's commands. They try to satisfy their con- 
science by an enforced belief that there is no hell, and that 
somehow every one is to be saved in the end. 

The strange fact is, that the very authority on which our 
belief in heaven is based is exactly the same authority for the 
fact that hell exists. Almost without exception the two — heaven 
and hell — are coupled in every Scriptural reference. We find 
that invariably when Christ promises salvation to believers, he 
also states that unbelievers shall be damned. He says they are 
damned already because they do not believe. When he says, 
"Enter, ye blessed, into the joy of your Lord," he also says to 
the unredeemed, "Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting darkness." 
Every one familiar with Scripture knows this to be true. We 
give a few examples. Matt. 23 : 14 : "Woe unto you, scribes 



The Wheat and Tares 117 

and Pharisees, hypocrites : for ye devour widows' houses, and 
for a pretense make long prayers ; therefore ye shall receive 
the greater damnation." Verse 33 : "Ye serpents, ye genera- 
tion of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" 
Mark 16: 16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; 
but he that believeth not shall be damned." John 5 : 29 : "All 
that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth ; 
they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and 
they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." 
Matt. 3: 12: "He shall thoroughly purge his floor, and gather 
his wheat into the garner; but will burn the chaff with un- 
quenchable fire." 

The argument resolves itself into two questions : Did Christ 
mean what he said ? What did he mean when he said it ? 

Christ never said anything he did not mean. He said (John 
9 : 5), "I am the light of the world" ; in other words, knowledge, 
revelation of Truth. As a revealer of Truth, Christ could only 
speak Truth. He never said anything to mislead. He was 
clear, positive, and unequivocal in all his statements. He said 
(John 14:22), "In my Father's house are many mansions: if 
it were not so, I would have told you." If the things concern- 
ing heaven were not so, Christ would have told us. Likewise, if 
the things concerning hell were not true, Christ would have said 
so. But, contrary, most of what we know about hell comes 
from Christ's own statements. Then, what did he mean by his 
reference to hell? 

HELL FIRE 

Take one reference — Matt. 5 : 22 : Jesus said, "Whosoever 
shall say [to his brother], Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell 
fire." This term, "hell fire," is from the Greek, Gehenna, 
Hebrew, Ge-Hinnom. It has reference to the Valley of Hin- 
nom. This is a narrow valley south of Jerusalem. Here Molech, 
the god of the Ammonites, was formerly worshiped, part of the 
ceremony being the passing of the worshipers between two fires. 



118 Twentieth Century Christianity 

See II. Chrom. 33: 6: ''He caused his children. to pass through 
the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom." Jeremiah 32 : 35 : 
"They built the high places of Baal which are in the valley of 
the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and daughters to pass 
through the fire unto Molech." God had forbidden the Israel- 
ites to have any part in this worship ; but time and time again 
they had disobeyed. After the Babylonian captivity, the Israel- 
ites showed their abhorrence for the worship of Molech by 
turning the Valley of Hinnom into a common sewer for the 
city of Jerusalem. Here all the rubbish and filth of the city was 
taken to be burned. There was an incessant fire smouldering, 
and flaming at times, and a constant smoke issued from the 
ravine. This came to be referred to as typical of the place of 
eternal punishment. Then to be in danger of Gehenna, or 
Ge-Hinnom, to the Jewish mind, was to be in danger of being 
cast out of the kingdom amidst the filth, just as the rubbish of 
Jerusalem was cast into the Valley of Hinnom outside the city. 
Christ uses this thought again in Matt. 13 : 41, 42 : "The Son of 
man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of 
his kingdom all things that offend, and them that do iniquity; 
and shall cast them into a furnace of fire : there shall be wailing 
and gnashing of teeth." John saw this in his vision (Rev. 21 : 8) 
"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and 
murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolators, 
and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burnetii 
with fire and brimstone which is the second death." 

Some say that this earth is all the hell there is and that this 
is hell enough for any one. Can an earth be hell where "the 
heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth 
his handiwork?" True, the earth is under a curse, but God 
has not withdrawn his face from it. He loves it still. Yes, 
with such a boundless love that he gave his only Son to redeem 
it. The Spirit of God is abroad in the land. The voice of God 
chimes forth from every church belfry. Every Christian pulpit 
resounds with the message of God's love and the invitation 



The Wheat and Tares 119 

to come into the kingdom. The influence of God's people is 
felt wherever the gospel is preached. Even those who are 
scoffing at the church are living under the blessings of the 
church. They are benefiting by the presence of God's Spirit. 
Take away the Bible, the church, and all Christian people with 
their institutions, then you will have hell on earth, for then you 
will have driven out God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. 
When all those who are forsaking God, criticising the church, 
denying the Bible and Jesus Christ, and reviling God's people — 
when all these unregenerated and degenerated are finally left to 
themselves, with God's face withdrawn, then they will have real 
hell and plenty of it. 

Let us not waste time discussing whether or not hell con- 
sists of real fire and brimstone. Let us say it is enough that 
hell is where God is not. Let us say it is enough to know that 
hell is outside the walls of the heavenly kingdom, where there 
are no songs of praise, no Christian love, no hope, no good. 
Let us say it is enough to be alone throughout eternity with the 
fires of a remorseful conscience, the experience of which is so 
well portrayed in Shakespeare's Richard III., before the battle 
of Bosworth Field: "My conscience hath a thousand several 
tongues, and every tongue brings in a several tale, and every 
tale condemns me for a villain. Perjury, jerjury in the highest 
degree ; murder, stern murder, in the direst degree ; all several 
sins, all used in each degree, throng to the bar, crying all, 
Guilty ; guilty : I shall despair. There is no creature loves me." 

But let us remember this : hell was not created for mortals. 
Christ said it was prepared for the devil and his angels (Matt. 
25 : 41), "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, pre- 
pared for the devil and his angels." We are not told that God 
created hell. The devil and his angels were cast out of heaven. 
The place that received them became hell. Hell is the devil's 
kingdom. It is for those who by choice have selected the devil 
as their king. This is done by rejecting Christ as King. Neither 
God nor Christ casts into hell. They simply say : "Depart. Go 



120 Twentieth Century Christianity 

to the kingdom you have chosen." Christ warns against this 
evil kingdom; Luke 12: 5 : "But I will forewarn you whom ye 
shall fear: Fear him, which, after he hath killed, hath power 
to cast into hell; Yea, I say unto you, Fear him." You see 
here that Christ says it is the devil that casts into hell. 

But what about the millions who have died in ignorance of 
God and Jesus Christ? This question is asked by our un-Spirit- 
ual friends. We may rest assured that our personal responsi- 
bility for the salvation of heathen peoples begins and ends in 
our own generation. God will take care of the past. Previous 
generations of Christians are responsible in part at least for 
previous generations of heathen. Our burden is not the mil- 
lions who have died in past generations, but the millions who 
are living and dying to-day. It is to these that Christ com- 
mands us to go preach the Gospel. It is the blood of this gener- 
ation that is upon our shoulders if we do not our duty. Mis- 
sionaries find in all heathen people an inherent knowledge of 
right and wrong. So that even without the knowledge of God 
and Christ, it is evident that among them, those who do wrong 
do it by choice — of their free will. So they are not wholly 
without responsibility. It is apparent that their ignorance is 
due to ages of separation from God. Christ commanded us to 
carry the Gospel to them that they might have the opportunity 
of regaining their lost estate. Finally, to those who are worry- 
ing about the justice of God in dealing with these heathen 
people and at the same time are denying the Bible and Jesus 
Christ, we commend for thoughtful consideration these words 
of Jesus (Matt. 11:21, 24) : "Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe 
unto thee, Bethsaida ! for if the mighty works, which have been 
done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have 
repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you ; 
It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of 
judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art 
exalted unto heaven, shall be brought down to hell : for if the 
mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in 



The Wheat and Tares 121 

Sodom, it would have remained unto this day. But I say unto 
you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in 
the day of judgment, than for thee." 

Does this not imply that the Judge will consider the capacity 
and opportunities of nations for knowing the true God? Christ 
compared the opportunities of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Caper- 
naum with those of Tyre and Sidon and Sodom, and he said 
that in the Judgment it would be more tolerable for the latter 
than for the former. Now, if there were to be no tolerance at 
all for the latter, then there would be nothing on which to base 
a comparative degree for the former. So that, inasmuch as a 
comparative degree of tolerance is expressed, it must be that 
some consideration is to be given the lack of full knowledge of 
God and Christ. 

Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom stood out in the Jewish mind as 
monstrously wicked cities. Yet, said Christ, had they seen the 
mighty works of God that had been witnessed by these Jews, 
they would have repented without hesitation in sackcloth and 
ashes. 

Now we wonder what relative position is held by the people 
of to-day, who, after all the centuries of Christian enlighten- 
ment, are denying Christ and the vicarious atonement, and are 
trying to destroy God's Word. That is something to think 
about. Just turn it over in your minds, dear un-Spiritual 
friends. 

There is still a deeper inference, we believe, in this state- 
ment of Christ. It is this: The people of Tyre, Sidon, and 
Sodom, while not having the advantages of the Jews of Christ's 
time, were still accountable as having some knowledge of God 
and of right and wrong. They possessed a natural, instinctive 
consciousness of right and wrong and some sense of a deity. 
No matter how far removed from the first man, Adam, it seems 
to be a fact that every man, every tribe of men, however sav- 
age, has some apprehension of God's existence. Men univer- 
sally know that there is a God, and that he is their Creator. 



122 Twentieth Century Christianity 

Cicero observed, "There is no nation so barbarous, no race so 
savage, as not to be firmly persuaded of the being of a God." 
Even those who in other respects appear to differ but little 
from brutes, always retain some sense of religion, so fully are 
the minds of men possessed with this common principle, which 
is so closely interwoven with their original composition. 

John Calvin concluded that since there has never been a 
country or family, from the beginning of the world, totally des- 
titute of religion, it is a tacit confession that some sense of the 
divinity is inscribed on every heart. Of this opinion idolatry 
itself furnishes ample proof ; for we know how reluctantly man 
would degrade himself to exalt other creatures above him. He 
further says : "God hath furnished the soul of man with a mind 
capable of discerning good from evil, just from unjust; and of 
discovering by the light of reason, what ought to be pursued 
or avoided. To this he hath annexed the Will, on which re- 
pends the Choice. The primitive condition of man was en- 
nobled with these eminent faculties. He possessed Reason, 
Understanding, Prudence, and Judgment, not only for the gov- 
ernment of his life on earth, but to enable him to ascend even 
unto God and eternal felicity. Man had received the power 
indeed, if he chose to exert it; but he had not the will to use 
that power." 

The whole argument shows that man does not lack the 
capability of doing good, but that he lacks the perseverance to 
use his will in the conquest of evil. Therefore, we conclude 
that, even though ignorant of the nature of the true God, yet 
even the savage knows good from evil, and if he pursues evil 
he does it of his own choice and thereby perverts his own soul. 
He is held accountable, not for the things of which he is igno- 
rant, but for the things of which his own nature is cognizant. 
On this basis Christ said, "It shall be more tolerable for those 
people in the judgment than for the people, who, having full 
knowledge of God's nature and will, yet persist in evil." It is 
to say, that for those partially unenlightened there will be a 



The Wheat and Tares 123 

degree of tolerance but not without accountability. But for 
those who have the opportunity of receiving the Truth as Christ 
taught it, but refuse to receive it, there will not be even as much 
tolerance as for the heathen. We find small consolation, there- 
fore, in the condition of the heathen as an argument against hell. 



Article Fifteen 
IS CHRIST'S RESURRECTION A MYTH? 

LAST Easter Sabbath, 1914, Mr. Herbert S. Bigelow, 
preacher-politician of Cincinnati, made an address at that 
city on the subject, "Wasting Tears at Empty Tombs." 
In the course of that address he said, "Although I believe in the 
immortality of the soul, I do not accept the story of the resur- 
rection of Jesus." Then he attempted to show that the evidence 
of the Evangelists, because of conflicting statements, is of such 
a character that to-day our law courts could not even establish 
as a probable fact the miraculous resurrection of a man. The 
most important thing connected with this address is the fact 
that the audience is reported to have applauded Mr. Bigelow's 
statement. Why should people rejoice to hear a politician 
endeavor to wipe out Christ's demonstration of the fact of the 
resurrection of the dead? The question of Job, "If a man die 
shall he live again ?" was a question over which ancient philoso- 
phers argued pro and con. It was a question on which the 
Jewish Pharisees and Sadducees disagreed. The Pharisees be- 
lieved in the resurrection of the dead, while the Sadducees de- 
nied it. There was only one way to settle the question and that 
was by divine revelation. God proposed to answer the ques- 
tion for the Spiritual enlightenment of the world and it was for 
Christ to demonstrate the fact. Paul said to the Corinthians, 
"If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your 
faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of 
God; because we testified of God that he raised up Christ: 
whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. If 
Christ be not raised, your faith is vain : ye are yet in your sins. 
If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men 
most miserable" (I. Cor. 15 : 14-20). 



The Wheat and Tares 125 

Regarding the statement of Mr. Bigelow, that the testimony 
of the Evangelists would not stand in court to-day, we must say 
that this preacher-politician, among other things, is apparently 
a very poor lawyer. Professor Simon Greenleaf, LL.D., an 
accepted authority on legal matters, disagrees with Mr. Bige- 
low. {Greenleaf on the Testimony of the Evangelists.) Dr. 
Greenleaf says : 

"The genuineness of the Scriptures admits of little doubt, 
and is susceptible of as ready proof, as that of any ancient 
writings whatsoever. The rule of municipal law on this sub- 
ject is to inquire first, when an ancient document is offered in 
evidence, was it found in the place and under the custody of 
persons with whom such writings might naturally and reason- 
ably be expected to be found ? This custody gives authenticity 
to the documents found with it. If they come from such place 
and bear no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes them to 
be genuine, and they are admitted in evidence. The burden of 
showing them to be false and unworthy of credit devolves upon 
the objecting party. Now this is precisely the case with the 
Sacred Writings. They have been used in the church from 
time immemorial, and they are found in the place where they 
ought to be looked for. They challenge our reception of them 
as genuine writings. They are found in familiar use in all the 
churches of Christendom, as the sacred books and standard of 
of their faith. They are received as the plain narratives of the 
men whose names they bear, made public at the times they were 
written. As to originals being lost and only copies being pro- 
duced, the municipal lav/ answers, The multiplication of copies 
was a public fact, in the faithfulness of which all the Christian 
community had an interest. In matters of public and general 
interest, all persons must be presumed to be conversant, on the 
principle that individuals are presumed to be conversant with 
their own affairs. The persons, moreover, who multiplied these 
copies, may be regarded, in some manner, as the agents of the 
Christian public, for whose use and benefit the copies were 



126 Twentieth Century Christianity 

made; and on the ground of the credit due such agents, and of 
the public nature of the facts themselves, it is not necessary that 
they should be confirmed and sanctioned by the ordinary tests of 
truth. If any ancient documents concerning our public rights 
were lost, copies which had been universally received and acted 
upon as the four Gospels have been, would have been received 
in evidence in any of our courts of justice without the slightest 
hesitation. These copies of the Holy Scriptures having been 
in familiar use in the churches from the time when the text was 
committed to writing; having been watched with vigilance by 
so many sects, opposed to each other in doctrine, yet all appeal- 
ing to these Scriptures for the correctness of their faith; and 
having in all ages, down to this day, been respected as the 
authoritative source of ecclesiastical power and government, 
and submitted to, and acted under in regard to so many claims 
of right, on the one hand, and so many obligations of duty, on 
the other ; it is quite erroneous to suppose that the Christian is 
bound to offer any further proof of their genuineness or authen- 
ticity. Contrary to the usual course in courts of chancery, the 
Christian writer seems to have been deprived, by infidels, of the 
common presumption of charity in his favor, and his testimony 
is unjustly presumed to be false, until it is proved to be true, 
and the testimony of a single profane writer, alone and uncor- 
roborated, is allowed to outweigh that of any single Christian. 
This treatment has been applied to them as a body, without re- 
gard to the fact that, being independent historians, writing at 
different periods, they are entitled to the support of each other ; 
they have been treated as if the New Testament were the entire 
production, at once, of a body of men, conspiring by a joint 
fabrication, to impose a false religion upon the world. The 
four Evangelists should be admitted in corroboration of each 
other, as readily as Josephus and Tacitus, or Polybius and Livy. 
The discrepancies between narratives of the several Evange- 
lists, when carefully examined, will not be found sufficient to 
invalidate their testimony. Many seeming contradictions will 



The Wheat and Tares 127 

prove, upon closer scrutiny, to be in perfect agreement ; and it 
may be confidently asserted that there are none that will not 
yield, under fair and just criticism. If these different accounts 
of the same transactions were in strict verbal conformity with 
each other, the argument against their credibility would be much 
stronger." 

Dr. Greenleaf then proceeds to examine the character of the 
Evangelists, their opportunity of becoming familiar with the 
events of their several histories, and the internal evidences of 
the integrity of their writings, and he shows conclusively that 
they are in harmony with each other and that their testimony 
is unimpeachable. He calls attention to the fact that the several 
narratives are straightforward accounts of the events recorded ; 
that there is an apparent indifference as to whether they are 
believed or not. There is an evident consciousness that the 
writers were recording events well known to all in their country 
and times, and undoubtedly to be believed like any other matter 
of public history. 

EVIDENCES OF RESURRECTION 

Let us now point out briefly a few of the evidences of 
Christ's resurrection as found in these Gospels. We must bear 
in mind that, after Christ's death on the cross, the disciples were 
discouraged, fearful, and doubtful. Christ had foretold his 
death, resurrection, and ascension in order to prevent this very 
condition, but the disciples did not comprehend. When the 
resurrection was first reported to them, they refused to believe. 
It became necessary for Christ to convince the disciples them- 
selves. Under these circumstances, their testimony to the fact 
of the resurrection should be accepted as evidence that they 
were convinced. 

Mr. Bigelow says there is a discrepancy in the records as 
to the time when the women went to the sepulchre. Let us see. 
All four agree that it was very early in the morning on the first 
day of the week. Matthew says, "as it began to dawn" ; Mark, 



128 Twentieth Century Christianity 

"at the rising of the sun" ; Luke, "very early in the morning," 
that is, deep morning or early dawn ; John, "early the first day 
of the week, when it was yet dark." Matthew, Mark, and Luke 
agree. Does John disagree when he says it was yet dark ? It is 
commonly said that the darkest hour is just before dawn. Then 
just at dawn or as the horizon shows the first signs of the rising 
sun, it is not erroneous to say that it is yet dark or before full 
daylight. It was the twilight of early morning and each writer 
was telling the story in his own way. Had they all said it was 
the "Fourth Watch," there would have been no criticism, yet 
there would have been a latitude of from three to six o'clock 
in the morning according to our present time. Any reasonable 
mind can only accept the statements as being in perfect har- 
mony. 

Next we are told that the Evangelists do not agree on what 
women went to the tomb. Matthew says, "Mary Magdalene 
and the other Mary" ; Mark, "Mary Magdalene, Mary, mother 
of James and Salome" ; Luke, "Mary Magdalene, Mary, mother 
of James, Joanna, and others" ; John, "Mary Magdalene." We 
notice they all agree on Mary Magdalene. It was she whom 
Jesus healed of "seven devils." She is afterward spoken of as 
ministering to Jesus, and evidently she was a leader among the 
women. It was to Mary Magdalene that Jesus first revealed 
himself after his resurrection. Because of this prominence 
each is particular to mention her. Then Matthew, Mark, and 
Luke all mention Mary, mother of James ; but while John only 
mentions Mary Magdalene, it does not follow that he denies 
that others were present. In fact, chapter twenty, verse two, 
indicates that John did know of the presence of others, for he 
records that Mary Magdalene said, "They have taken away the 
Lord out of the sepulchre and we know not where they have 
laid him." The plural pronoun "we" indicates the presence of 
other women not named by John. Mary Magdalene is alone 
mentioned by John because it was she who came running to 
John and Peter with the announcement that the body of Jesus 



The Wheat and Tares 129 

was gone, and John and Peter ran at once to the tomb without 
first meeting the other women. John was, therefore, only con- 
cerned in mentioning Mary Magdalene as being the one who 
first brought him the information. In no case are we to pre- 
sume that the Evangelists were impressed with the necessity of 
each mentioning by name all of the women who went to the 
tomb. This was merely an incidental matter, particularly after 
they had seen the Lord themselves. The principal fact is that 
certain women went to the tomb, found it empty, and imme- 
diately brought word to the disciples. The same individuality 
occurs in the report of any important event as told by different 
persons familiar with any of the facts. Because all of the 
details are not specifically mentioned by each narrator, is no 
reason why each is presumed to contradict the other. But the 
sum of all the facts narrated simply makes up the complete 
narrative. Here again we find no discrepancy. 

Mr. Bigelow next asks, "Did any of the men witness any of 
these extraordinary happenings?" Matthew and Mark do not 
mention any of the men as going to the tomb. Luke says Peter 
was there, and John mentions Peter and himself. It is evident 
that Matthew and Mark saw nothing important in the visit of 
Peter and John, as they added no new information to the re- 
ports of the women, they not having seen the Lord at that time. 
No one doubted that the body was gone, but the disciples did 
not believe the reports of the resurrection. Luke wrote his 
book after carefully testing tradition by documentary evidence 
(see chapters 1:5; 2:2; and 3:1), and by comparing the oral 
testimony of living witnesses (chapter 1:2, 3). He was a col- 
league of Paul and came in contact with Peter, from whom he 
secured much information. Hence he mentions Peter in this 
connection. John in writing his own book naturally incor- 
porates his own experiences, thus he mentions the details of 
himself running with Peter to the tomb. But all of this has 
little bearing on the fact of the resurrection. 



130 Twentieth Century Christianity 

Mr. Bigelow asks, "Did any one see the stone rolled away?" 
He says that Matthew implies that the two Marys saw the phe- 
nomenon, while the other Evangelists say the stone was rolled 
away when the women arrived. In regard to Matthew, he is 
wrong. Matthew says, speaking of the arrival of the women, 
"There was a great earthquake," etc. In other words, there 
had been a great earthquake, etc. Matthew clearly implies, like 
the others, that the stone was already rolled away. He reports 
the angels as saying, "Fear not ye; for I know that ye seek 
Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here : for he is risen," etc. 
This shows clearly that the resurrection had already taken place 
as the other three state. Here again we find no discrepancy. 

THE EARTHQUAKE 

Matthew is the only one who reports the phenomena con- 
nected with the resurrection. Since this all occurred before the 
visit of the women, where did Matthew get his information? 
We recall that, before his conversion, Matthew was a politician. 
He held the position of collector of customs at Capernaum. No 
doubt he was acquainted with the Roman and Jewish officials 
at Jerusalem. What would be more natural than that he should 
go to official headquarters for information ? It was there that 
he heard directly or indirectly from the Roman soldiers their 
account of the events attending the opening of the tomb. It 
was there he learned of the bribes offered the soldiers to say 
that Jesus' body was stolen by the disciples. All of the other 
details questioned by Mr. Bigelow, minor as they are, can be 
just as easily explained when the texts are carefully compared. 
But we pass to the positive evidences of the resurrection. 

That the tomb was empty must be admitted on the evidence 
of the women, of Peter and John, and of the Roman soldiers. 
If there were no resurrection, what became of the body? Ac- 
cording to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the angel said, "He is 
risen." John says that he and Peter went into the tomb and 
found the linen clothes lying to one side, and the napkin, that 



The Wheat and Tares 131 

was about Jesus' head, carefully folded and lying by itself. Had 
this been the work of robbers, no such care would have been in 
evidence. The theory of robbery would have to take into ac- 
count the governor's seal, to break which was punishable by 
death ; also the Roman soldiers, for whom death awaited any 
dereliction of duty. There is absolutely nothing to the theory 
of robbery or conspiracy. 

We have the evidence of prophecy for the resurrection. For 
example, Isaiah 53: 10-12: "When thou shalt make his soul an 
offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, 
and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hands." 
Psalms 16 : 10 : "For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell ; neither 
wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." Jesus fore- 
told his death and resurrection by his baptism. He spoke of it 
many times. John 10:15-17: "I lay down my life, that I might 
take it again." "I have power to lay it down and I have power 
to take it again." Matt. 12: 40: "As Jonas was three days and 
three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be 
three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." John 
2: 19: "Destroy this temple [body], and in three days I will 
raise it up." 

We have the evidence of Jesus' appearance to many after his 
resurrection. We will not describe them here but merely men- 
tion them : To Mary Magdalene at the tomb ; women of Galilee 
at Jerusalem ; two disciples on the way to Emmaus ; Peter at 
Jerusalem ; ten apostles in the upper chamber with Thomas 
absent; again with Thomas present; seven apostles and others 
fishing on Tiberius ; five hundred Christians mentioned in 
I. Corinthians 15; James the Less, I. Cor. 15; eleven apostles 
and others on Ascension Day. These appearances were all so 
evident that all of the disciples, even Thomas the Doubter, were 
convinced of the resurrection. Jesus proved that he was not a 
spirit but that his body partook of flesh and bones. Luke 24 :39 : 
"A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." The 
disciples were asked to witness the scars in his hands and feet 



132 Twentieth Century Christianity 

and the wound in his side. Acts 1:3: "He shewed himself 
alive after his passion by many infallible proofs being seen of 
them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the 
kingdom of God." While Stephen was being mobbed, he cried, 
"I see the heavens opened and the Son of man standing on the 
right hand of God" (Acts 7 : 56). Then we have the testimony 
of Paul (Saul of Tarsus). He was an enemy of the Christians. 
He was having them imprisoned and put to death. He had 
received letters authorizing him to go to Damascus to persecute 
the Christians there. On the way he was stricken to the ground 
and heard a voice from heaven saying, "I am Jesus whom thou 
persecutest." Was Paul convinced? Evidently so; for, from 
being a great menace to early Christianity, he became the 
greatest exponent of Christian doctrine who has ever lived. 
Read his defence before Agrippa, Acts 26 : "Why should it be 
thought a thing incredible with you that God should raise the 
dead ? For the king [Agrippa] knoweth of these things, before 
whom I speak freely; for I am persuaded that none of these 
things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a 
corner." Yes, these were all events of public knowledge at the 
time. Finally, we have the evidence of the Holy Spirit, which 
is present in the world to-day as Christ promised. He is a 
daily witness that these things are true. 



WHAT WILL YOU DO WITH JESUS?" 

— Pilate. 



APPENDIX 

The following articles were not published with the fore- 
going but were prepared in connection with them. They are 
added here as treating on questions of common argument. 



WHAT DID JESUS TEACH CONCERNING 
THE SABBATH? 

A CERTAIN local philosopher delivered himself, at a Sun- 
day service, of the following: 

"The Sabbath, or Sunday, is of human growth, and 
has grown quietly and slowly like any other human institution." 
Again: "When we say that the Sabbath is a law of God, for 
very truth's sake we ought to be sure of what we mean." Then 
he speaks of periods of rest adopted by various pagan nations. 
He then says, "The Sabbath originated in Western Asia, very 
likely ten thousand years ago, among the Babylonians." Fur- 
ther, he claims that Jesus protested vigorously against the rigid 
blue Sabbath, and that he said that man's interests are supreme 
over those of the Sabbath ; that "Paul put it up to the individual 
to decide about certain days being of special sanctity" ; that 
Jesus said "Man is lord of the Sabbath." Then he exhorts us 
to make a newer and more sensible Sabbath — "one of devotion 
in the morning, of abandon in the afternoon, and of education 
in the evening." That is what our philosopher says. What did 
Jesus teach ? But first, What did God say of the Sabbath ? 

Genesis 2 : 2-3 : "On the seventh day God ended his work 
which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day. And 
God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it." Again, Genesis 
20:8-10, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six 
days shalt thou labor and do all thy work : but the seventh day 
is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God : in it thou shalt not do any 
work" etc. 

We are not discussing what a day meant to God. We are 
pointing out that God divided his work into six periods, what- 
ever you want to consider those periods to be, and that there 
was a seventh period in which God ceased to labor on the crea- 
tion, and that God blessed that seventh period, and that seventh 



The Wheat and Tares 135 

period is represented in our calendar as twenty-four hours suc- 
ceeding six other similar periods of twenty-fours. In other 
words, one-seventh of man's time, taken in regular intervals, 
belongs to God. "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord 
thy God." It does not say that it is the Sabbath of man. It 
belongs to God. It is sanctified. It is holy. It is obvious that 
such a period can only be practically observed when it is so 
observed by a whole community, whether considered as a muni- 
cipality, a state, or a nation. 

Paul did say, "One man esteemeth one day above another : 
another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be persuaded 
in his own mind." In the early church there often arose dis- 
cussions between Gentile and Jewish Christians as to the ob- 
servance of certain Jewish customs. Circumcision, unclean 
foods, ceremonial observances, all came up for decision at var- 
ious times. Peter found it hard to break away from these old 
customs, and for that reason he was not as successful among 
the Gentiles as was Paul. It was in the matter of deciding some 
of these points among the Romans that Paul used the above 
words. In Romans 14, where these words are used, we find 
that Paul is not discussing the Sabbath but is discussing the 
matter of foods and the observance of feast days. In the pres- 
ent day, Paul would no doubt say, "It does not matter whether 
you observe the first day of the week or the seventh day, just 
so you observe one day" — just as the Jews observe Saturday, 
while the Gentiles observe Sunday. If the Jew observes Sat- 
urday, to him Saturday is the holy day. But note what Paul 
says, "He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; 
and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not re- 
gard it." To observe the day as a holy day, we must regard 
it unto the Lord. The Jewish observance of Saturday in a 
Gentile community shows how impractical it is not to have a 
day uniform in the entire community. For the Jew is almost 
forced to transact business on Saturday, while he likewise is 
forced to close business on Sunday. Hence, he worships to 



136 Twentieth Century Christianity 

some extent on one day and rests on another. Devotion and 
rest should go together for the observance of the day as holy 
according to the Mosaic law and the Ten Commandments. 

From the foregoing we see that the Sabbath is not of human 
origin, but is an institution of God. There is no true founda- 
tion for the assertion that the Mosaic laws were originated by 
Moses, or that they were copied from Egyptian or other laws, 
for it was a peculiar code. All through the Old Testament, 
when we read of the Jews going after other gods, we find 
them violating the laws of Moses and indulging in practices 
that were entirely foreign to the laws laid down in their code. 
At such times the temple was neglected. Sometimes during 
these periods of apostasy the law was entirely forgotten. We 
find instances like the case of King Josiah, who was really 
ignorant of the law. When the Book of the Law was found 
in the temple while he was having it repaired, upon hearing it 
read, King Josiah rent his clothes because he saw how fearfully 
the nation had violated the laws. These facts prove that the 
laws and customs of other nations were not only dissimilar but 
absolutely contrary to the laws of Moses. Furthermore, Jesus 
Christ constantly taught the authenticity of the Mosaic laws. 
Our philosopher would destroy these laws by denying their 
recorded origin. This is more than Christ himself would do, 
for he said, "I came not to destroy the law but to fulfill." And 
"Verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or 
one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." 
And again, "Whosoever shall break one of the least of these 
commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called least 
in the kingdom of heaven." 

Now, what was Jesus' attitude toward the Sabbath? Did 
he consider it of human origin? Luke 4: 16: "As his custom 
was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and stood 
up for to read." We find it was Jesus' custom to go to church 
on the Sabbath, and there he taught the people from the Book— 
the Law and Prophets — the very books which our philosophers 



The Wheat and Tares 137 

tell us are full of myths and adaptations from various pagan 
nations. Jesus did not so consider them. Evidently Jesus con- 
sidered the Sabbath as a day of devotion. Jesus said, "It is 
lawful to do good on the Sabbath." 

In what respect did Jesus protest against the rigid blue 
Sabbath? The Scripture on which our philosopher bases his 
argument is found in Matthew, twelfth chapter, also Mark 
2 : 23-28, and Luke 6 : 1-5. It was on a Sabbath, and Jesus and 
his disciples were walking through a wheat field, presumably 
returning from the morning service at the synagogue. The 
disciples, being hungry, plucked some ears of wheat and began 
to eat them. Some Pharisees saw them and rebuked Jesus be- 
cause, they said, his disciples profaned the Sabbath. In his 
reply Jesus made two statements which others, as well as our 
philosopher, misinterpret. First, "The Sabbath was made for 
man, and not man for the Sabbath." Second, "The Son of man 
is Lord also of the Sabbath." What did Jesus mean? 

Christ did not say that man is lord of the Sabbath as our 
philosopher states. He said, "The Son of man is also Lord of 
the Sabbath." Jesus constantly called himself the Son of man. 
He meant that he personally was Lord of the Sabbath. This 
was true because Christ himself originally issued the law con- 
cerning the Sabbath. We make this statement regardless of 
the absurd claims of our philosopher concerning the ancient 
Scriptural record. For Christ distinctly says that he was in 
the beginning with God. And we are told that all things were 
made by him and without him was not anything made. He 
made the Sabbath. He gave the law concerning the Sabbath. 
And the law was rigidly observed by the Jews. It was not a day 
of feasting and hilarity as stated by our Mr. Philosopher. The 
Jews were not allowed to gather manna on the Sabbath, for 
instance. All the way through the Mosaic laws the Sabbath 
w r as rigidly sanctified even as to the preparation of sacrifices. 
The statements of our philosopher originate either from gross 
ignorance or wilful deception. Christ was Lord of the Sab- 



138 Twentieth Century Christianity 

bath — "also." Note this word, "also." He was Lord of all 
things including the Sabbath. Being Lord, or the maker of 
the Sabbath, he knew better than the Pharisees the true purpose 
of the Sabbath. He could interpret its divine meaning as Lord 
of the Sabbath. He said, "The Sabbath was made for man." 
But he did not say that it was for man to use as he pleases. 
Christ recognized man's need of a Sabbath — a one day in seven 
when all human energy should be given a rest from its strain 
of the other six days. He recognized that the physical machine 
could not go on indefinitely without rest. But the day would 
be robbed of its purpose in this respect if men, while they 
ceased from labor, were to be encompassed with multitudinous 
laws of restriction that would make the day one of punishment 
and judgment rather than one of peaceful relaxation and rest. 
He referred to laws enacted by the Pharisees and not the laws 
of Moses. In this respect man was not made for the Sabbath. 
Because of sin, man was condemned to earn his bread by the 
sweat of his brow, but God was merciful in educating him to 
the fact that he must have periods of rest. First, a portion of 
each day. Second, a portion of each week must be set aside for 
physical rest. As man would naturally devote his thoughts and 
energy during the week days to the maintaining of physical 
life, there must be a time when he should turn his thoughts to 
his Spiritual life — to the worship of God — that he might not 
forget his Creator ; that he might not forget that he is more than 
a physical machine ; that he might not forget he has an immortal 
soul. Therefore the Sabbath was made for man. He should 
always remember that it is the Sabbath of the Lord God. 
Man should use the Sabbath but not steal it from God. Honor 
the Sabbath Day. Keep it holy. Do not destroy it. Do not let 
others destroy it. We are apt to say, "The Sabbath was made 
for me to do as I please." Remember it was made for men — all 
men. And all men should so honor it as not to destroy it for 
any man. 



The Wheat and Tares 139 

Not long ago there was imported into Dayton, a certain 
man, an expert in welfare work, who made a speech — such as 
most of these experts can make. In that speech he advocated 
Sunday baseball, a municipal dance hall, and a few other things. 
Then, becoming enthusiastic over his hobby, he took occasion 
to criticize the church and revivals, which he termed "religious 
sprees." Then he was kept busy for a week explaining himself. 
He occupied one of the pulpits at a Sunday service trying to 
tell the church what it should do to keep abreast of the times. 
It appears he made a bad matter worse. Also, he was 
not very successful in explaining himself to the Ministerial 
Association. The trouble with this man is, he lacks Spirit- 
ual vision. Sunday baseball and dance halls are a greater 
factor with him than the Spiritual welfare of the community. 
He is one who would lead the people after false gods. There 
is nothing Scriptural nor logical in this manner of treating the 
Sabbath. The Scriptural law is a logical law. Take it as you 
will, it is scientific. The holy Sabbath is a necessary institu- 
tion. It is a physical, moral, and Spiritual necessity. Judge 
for yourself whether you had better hearken unto God or 
hearken unto men. 



WHAT DID CHRIST TEACH CONCERNING 
BAPTISM? 

IN discussing this question, it is to be understood that we are 
raising no argument with respect to forms adopted by var- 
ious denominations of the orthodox church. So far as 
we know, the leaders of all denominations agree that the orig- 
inal form was immersion. Other modes were adopted by some 
as being of more convenient form and considered as sufficient 
to carry out the spirit of the ordinance. This matter is for the 
individual conscience to settle. Our argument is with those who 
do not believe in baptism because they do not believe in the 
Spiritual life of Christ and consequently do not accept Christ 
as the Redeemer. Also with that sect which claims to be 
translated beyond all material forms. We shall discuss the 
question purely on its merits. 

What did Christ teach concerning baptism ? 

When Jesus came from Galilee to be baptized of John in 
the Jordan, "John forbade him, saying, I have need to be bap- 
tized of thee, and comest thou to me? Jesus answered, Suffer 
it to be so now : for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteous- 
ness" (Matt. 3: 14-15). John was preaching a new message, 
"Repent and be baptized, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." 
It had never been heard before. It was a message never heard 
in all the temple worship. The Jews were crowding to the 
banks of the Jordan to hear the wonderful message. John told 
them of their evil lives, and called upon them to repent and be 
baptized. Hundreds accepted the call and were baptized con- 
fessing their sins. Then one day Christ came and offered him- 
self for baptism. John at first refused him. Why? Not be- 
cause he knew that Jesus was the Messiah. John did not know 
Jesus as the Son of God until after the baptism. We find his 
own statement to this effect in John 1 : 33, "And I knew him 



The Wheat and Tares 141 

not : but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said 
unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and 
remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy 
Ghost." This phenomenon did not occur until after the bap- 
tism of Jesus. Then why did John feel unworthy to baptize 
Jesus ? In Luke 1 : 44, we read, when Mary went to salute 
her cousin Elisabeth, after the holy conception, Elisabeth said, 
"Lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, 
the babe leaped in my womb for joy." This babe was to be 
John Baptist. There was a psychical influence even at that 
time. Then in the wilderness it is evident that John had holy 
visitors who instructed him regarding his work, for he speaks 
of one who sent him to baptize. There must have been some 
peculiar sensation while in the presence of these holy visitors. 
So we may assume that John felt a thrill of some power su- 
perior to himself when Jesus approached which caused him to 
say, "I have need to be baptized of thee." Jesus said, "Thus 
it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness." Note the word "us." 
He was speaking to John. He meant John and himself. It 
was necessary for Jesus to be baptized and it was necessary for 
John to baptize him. John was the one who was to prepare the 
way. He had been doing this among the people. Jesus must 
also be prepared for the work which he was about to begin. 
One preparation for the work was baptism. What, then, did 
Jesus' baptism signify? What did it mean? What did the 
baptism of the Jews mean ? It meant that they should bury in 
the water of baptism their old lives, their old customs, old 
forms of sacrifices, their old ceremonial forms which were 
merely prophetic of the realization which was now about to 
take place. They were now to be regenerated and live in the 
New Dispensation of repentance and redemption. The old man 
was to be buried and to be raised again to walk in a new life. 
But Jesus' baptism had a peculiar significance. In fact, his 
baptism gave to the ordinance its full strength. Jesus came into 
the world to restore correspondence between man and God. 



142 Twentieth Century Christianity 

This involved a renewed revelation of God to man — teaching 
the Spirit of the kingdom of God — opening a way by which man 
might regain his Spiritual state. This meant a final sacrifice 
for sin which would be available to all who would accept it. 
This sacrifice was to be his own life. This sacrifice typified the 
complete submission of the human will to the will of God. 
Jesus had now reached about the age of thirty years. He was 
now ready to undertake his work. His first act was to take on 
the vow to do his Father's will to the uttermost. This vow was 
symbolized in baptism. He laid down his life and he took it 
again. His death and resurrection were thus portrayed. It was 
in this that all righteousness would be fulfilled. By this act 
Jesus promised God that he would obey to the limit. It was 
then that God called from heaven, "This is my beloved Son; 
hear ye him." It was then that John saw the sign agreed upon 
by which he recognized the Son of God. 

During Jesus' ministry, he often spoke of baptism. He not 
only said to John that it was necessary for himself to be bap- 
tized, but he afterward said that it is necessary for all who 
would follow him to be baptized. 

When Nicodemus came to Jesus to learn more about him 
and his teachings, he said, "Rabbi, we know that thou art a 
teacher come from God : for no man can do these miracles that 
thou doest, except God be with him." Jesus told Nicodemus 
that it was not sufficient to acknowledge him as a prophet, 
because of his miracles. If Nicodemus would know about the 
kingdom of God, there was one thing absolutely necessary. 
Jesus said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the 
kingdom of God." Then he said further, "Except a man be 
born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the king- 
dom of God." 

What did Christ mean by being born of Water ? When water 
is used figuratively in the Bible, it usually symbolizes an abun- 
dance of life — the absolute life, namely Spiritual life. For 
example, we find in John 7 : 37-39, "In the last day, that great 



The Wheat and Tares 143 

day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man 
thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on 
me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers 
of living water. ( But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that 
believe on him should receive : for the Holy Ghost was not yet 
given ; because that Jesus was not yet glorified)." Isaiah 12 :3 : 
"Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of sal- 
vation" ; that is, draw a new and abundant life from the ex- 
haustless supply of the Messiah's salvation. And John 4:11: 
" Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of 
God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou 
wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee 
living water" ; that is, Spiritual life. And John 4 : 14 : "The 
water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water 
springing up into everlasting life." These references are suf- 
ficient to prove our statement. Then to be born of water and 
of the Spirit, is to be born into a new Spiritual life, the gift 
of the Holy Spirit through Jesus Christ. 

Jesus follows these statements with the picture of Moses 
lifting up the serpent in the wilderness, symbolic of his cruci- 
fixion, and says, "Even so must the Son of man be lifted up : 
that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have 
eternal life." Thus Jesus connects his own death and resurrec- 
tion, and the gift of eternal life, with being born of water. 
Then Jesus could only have referred to being born anew 
through the waters of baptism as symbolizing his death and 
resurrection. Buried in the water — dead to sin ; raised again — 
resurrected to a new and abundant Spiritual life. 

Now it must not be considered that baptism is a cleansing 
process. Of itself, baptism neither cleanses the body nor the 
soul of sin, as some have supposed. It has no material signifi- 
cance and that is where some have erred. Its significance is 
wholly Spiritual. 

Then again, baptism is not a saving ordinance. There are 
some who have been baptized who will not enter the kingdom 



144 Twentieth Century Christianity 

of heaven. For they have afterward forsaken and traduced the 
cause which they had at first espoused. They come under that 
class of whom Christ said, "The last state of that man is worse 
than the first." On the other hand, there will be some enter 
the kingdom who have not been baptized. We have for this the 
example of the thief on the cross, to whom Christ said, "This 
day thou shalt be with me in Paradise." Yet this is a serious 
question. We believe that those who wilfully reject baptism, 
do more than reject the ordinance. They reject the vow for 
which the ordinance stands. In rejecting that vow they are 
really rejecting Christ. Yet, there are those who do not see the 
Light until the last hour when the ordinance of baptism is not 
practical and, no doubt, such are forgiven. 

Paul clearly interprets the ordinance in Romans 6 : 3-5 : 
"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus 
Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried 
with him by baptism into death : that like as Christ was raised 
up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also 
should walk in a newness of life. For if we have been planted 
together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the 
likeness of his resurrection." 

To be effective, baptism should be thoroughly understood. 
We find in Acts 18 and 19 an instance where it was not under- 
stood. Apollos, an enthusiastic disciple, not understanding the 
ordinance, had gone to Ephesus and baptized a number of 
people in the name of John. When Paul arrived he asked the 
converts if they had received the gift of the Holy Ghost, and 
they answered that they knew nothing about the Holy Ghost. 
Paul then asked, "Unto what, then, were ye baptized?" And 
they said, "Unto John's baptism." Then Paul explained that 
John taught that they should believe on him who should come 
after him, that is, on Jesus Christ. Then they were baptized 
in the name of the Lord Jesus. 

Baptism, then, signifies that the candidate confesses his 
sins, repents of them, dies to his old life, agrees to walk in a 






The Wheat and Tares 145 

new life; acknowledges the death and resurrection of Christ; 
and, like Christ, submits his will to the will of God; accepts 
the vicarious atonement as his hope in the resurrection and as 
his door into the kingdom of God. Also that he acknowledges 
the Trinity, for he must be baptized in the name of the Father, 
the Son, and the Holy Ghost. 

Finally, what did Jesus command respecting Baptism? 

Matthew 28 : 19 : "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, 
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost." 

Mark 16: 15: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the 
gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved : but he that believeth not shall be damned." 
Notice that belief must precede baptism. The disciples ac- 
cepted this commission and we find them at work in the Book 
of Acts, preaching and baptizing all who believed and repented. 
This is true also in their work during Jesus' ministry. 

All of this is in accordance with the teachings of Jesus. Do 
you believe in the teachings of Jesus? 



THE LORD'S SUPPER 

OR 

HOLY COMMUNION 

HAVING discussed baptism, the first of two ordinances 
instituted by Christ, our work would not be complete 
without a brief discussion of the second, known as the 
Lord's Supper. 

We do not propose to go into all the controversies that 
have arisen from the doctrines pertaining to this ordinance, 
which have tended only to mystify it, such as "transubstantia- 
tion," "concomitance," "consubstantiation," "transmutation," etc. 
We shall appeal directly to the purpose of the ordinance as 
originally designed by Christ. It was a simple ordinance and 
we are sure that Christ did not intend it to be surrounded with 
mystery. It was the last supper of which Jesus partook with 
his disciples before his crucifixion. It was the Passover supper 
commemorating the end of the bondage in Egypt — the night 
when the death angel slew the firstborn of Egypt, but passed 
over the houses of the Israelites where the blood was sprinkled 
over the lintels and the door posts. That event which caused 
Pharaoh to let the Israelites go, had occurred about fifteen 
hundred years prior to the night when Jesus sat with his dis- 
ciples to celebrate it for the last time. All during that period, 
once every year, that event was celebrated in memoriam by the 
Jews. But this Passover would be the last, for a new supper 
was about to be ordained. Christ, the true Passover Lamb, was 
about to be slain that all nations might be liberated from the 
bondage of sin. It was a sad time, for it was a parting time. 
It was a sad time because there was a traitor present. It was 
a sad time for Jesus because he had a terrible burden resting 
upon him — a burden which, a little later, made him shed great 
drops of blood in Gethsemane. He talked to his disciples of 
the coming event during the supper. Then toward the end of 



The Wheat and Tares 147 

the supper, while they were yet eating, thus blending the 
prophecy into the fulfillment, "Jesus took bread, and blessed it, 
and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; 
this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and 
gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it ; For this is my blood 
of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission 
of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this 
fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you 
in my Father's kingdom" (Matt. 26: 26, 29). 

Mark's record is verbally the same as Matthew's. Luke 
adds, "This do in remembrance of me." And Paul, in First 
Corinthians 11 : 26, says, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and 
drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." 

Now we have the story ; let us analyze it. Jesus said of the 
bread, "This is my body." He said of the wine, "This is my 
blood." The controversies of the past have hinged on the 
word "is" — "is my body," "is my blood." 

As Jesus' body had not yet been broken, nor his blood 
spilled, and as his body at that time was just as human or 
material as the body of any other man, it is evident that he did 
not mean that the bread and wine were literally his flesh and 
blood, nor that they were similar in substance to his flesh and 
blood, nor that his Spirit accompanied them. Jesus blessed the 
bread and wine, just as he gave thanks at any meal, just as he 
blessed the loaves and fishes when he fed the five thousand. 

When Jesus said to the woman of Samaria that he would 
give her living water, the woman took him literally. Then 
Jesus said, "Whosoever shall drink of this water shall thirst 
again ; but he that drinketh of the water that I shall give, shall 
never thirst." Now, we know that Jesus had reference to the 
Holy Spirit. But he did not mean that the Holy Spirit was 
really water, nor that the Holy Spirit was to be given in the 
form of water. He spoke figuratively. 

When Jesus said to the Jews (John 6: 35), "I am the bread 
of life," he did not mean literally that he was bread. When he 



148 Twentieth Century Christianity 

told his disciples to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, he 
did not mean literally "leaven bread." Matthew 16 : 12 : "Then 
understood they how that he bade them not beware of the 
leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sad- 
ducees." "Leaven" stood for "doctrine." When Jesus said, 
"Ye are the salt of the earth," he did not mean that his fol- 
lowers are actually salt. Types were used all through the 
Jewish religious ceremonies. The Jews were used to thinking 
in symbols. Jesus constantly taught in symbols. All of his 
parables were truths represented in symbols. For example, the 
"Wheat and Tares." Jesus explained that the wheat was the 
children of God, and the tares, the children of the devil, and the 
harvest, the end of the world, etc. So, at this supper, Jesus 
meant that the bread was a symbol of his broken body and the 
wine a symbol of his spilled blood. 

Next we observe that he gave both the bread and the wine 
to his disciples. They, his followers, were to partake of both — 
in form — his broken body and spilled blood. Matthew and 
Mark say, "Drink ye all of it," that is, all of the disciples should 
drink of it ; or as Luke has it, "Divide it among you." 

It was intended that all of Jesus' followers were to partake 
of this supper. It was a ceremony for believers. Paul says 
(I. Cor. 10: 17), "For we, being many, are one bread, and one 
body: for we are all partakers of that one bread"; (I. Cor. 
10: 21), "Ye cannot drink of the cup of the Lord, and the cup 
of devils : ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table and the 
table of devils." Those who partake should be one — of one 
body, Christ Jesus. They should be of one Lord, one faith, 
and one baptism. 

But some have erred in remaining away from the Lord's 
supper, thinking they were unworthy. Paul said, "Whosoever 
shall eat of this bread, and drink of this cup of the Lord, 
unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord" 
(I. Cor. 11:27). This has frightened some because they did 
not understand the meaning. By reading verses twenty to 



The Wheat and Tares 149 

twenty-two inclusive, we find that Paul was reprimanding the 
Corinthians for making a glutinous feast of the Lord's Supper. 
In verse twenty-nine, he explains that they were unworthy in 
"not discerning the Lord's body." These Corinthians had not 
been recognizing the purpose of the Lord's Supper but had 
turned it into a regular feast and were drinking to excess. They 
thus profaned the ceremony. The admonition pertains to the 
manner and spirit in which the ordinance is celebrated and not 
the moral condition of the believer. That is, no one should stay 
away because he has sinned, for in that case no one could par- 
take. We should partake as believers, in remembrance of our 
Lord's death. It is a constant reminder to the world that Christ 
died for sinners. We who believe and have accepted Christ, 
should use this means of keeping the fact before the world. 
"Do it in remembrance of me," said Christ. "This do" — it was 
a command ; and yet it has the ring of a request. It sounds as 
though Christ said, "This do in remembrance of me — if ye love 
me." It was in parting — "Remember me — remember my love 
for you — remember me to the world. Keep my dying love 
fresh in your memories until I come again." "I will drink no 
more of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it 
new with you in my Father's kingdom." 

Thus, as we sit around the Lord's table, we are looking back 
at his death and at the same time we are looking forward to 
his coming again — looking forward to the time when we shall 
partake with Jesus Christ of the supper in our Father's king- 
dom. What a beautiful thought that we are not worshiping a 
dead Jesus but a living Christ ! — one who is with the Father and 
who will come again to receive us. 



"Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up 
into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken 
up from you into heaven, shall so come again in 
like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." 

— Acts 1:11. 



150 Twentieth Century Christianity 



BENEDICTION 

"Now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; 
but the greatest of these is love." 

— /. Corinthians 13:13. 



"Greater love hath no man than this, that a 
man lay down his life for his friends." 

— John 15:13. 



"God commendeth his love toward us, in that 
while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." 

— Romans 5:8. 



"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the 
love of God, and the communion of the Holy 
Ghost, be with you all. Amen. 

— Galatians 13:14. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: July 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



